15183 Exemption Document — San Jacinto City Council, November 19, 2024

The Esplanade Collection
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
Community Plan CEQA Streamlining Checklist

Lead Agency:

City of San Jacinto
Planning Division
595 S. San Jacinto Ave
San Jacinto, CA 92583
Project Applicant:

Pacifica Investments
333 City Blvd West, Suite 1700
Orange, CA 92868
CEQA Consultant:
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
November 2024
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plance Exemption Checklist ii
Table of Contents

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

1.1. OVERVIEW OF CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183...........................................................................................1

1.2. SAN JACINTO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE....................................................................................................2

1.3. PROJECT OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................................................2

1.4. APPLICABILITY OF STATE CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183.........................................................................2

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING...........................................................................................................5

2.1. PROJECT LOCATION.....................................................................................................................................5

2.2. EXISTING LAND USE ......................................................................................................................................5

2.3. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS..............................................5

2.4. SURROUNDING LAND USES........................................................................................................................5

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................19

3.1. PROJECT OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................................. 19

3.2. PROJECT FEATURES .................................................................................................................................... 19

3.3. PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES..................................................................................................................... 22

3.4. CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 22

3.5. PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT(S) FOR ANALYZING STATE CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 22 3.6. LOCATION OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT(S) ANALYZING THE EFFECTS OF INFILL PROJECTS............................................................................................................................................................... 22

3.7. DISCRETIONARY ACTION CHECKLIST..................................................................................................... 23

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .....................................................................................................41

4.1. BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................ 41

4.2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED....................................................................... 42

4.3. DETERMINATION ......................................................................................................................................... 42

4.4. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ..................................................................................... 43

5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................44

5.1. AESTHETICS................................................................................................................................................... 44

5.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES......................................................................................... 50

5.3. AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................................................. 54

5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES......................................................................................................................... 66

5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.............................................................................................................................. 74

5.6. ENERGY......................................................................................................................................................... 78

5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.............................................................................................................................. 82

5.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.............................................................................................................. 90

5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................................................. 99

5.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.........................................................................................107

5.11. LAND USE AND PLANNING..........................................................................................................115

5.12. MINERAL RESOURCES.....................................................................................................................118

5.13. NOISE.................................................................................................................................................120

5.14. POPULATION AND HOUSING .....................................................................................................136

5.15. PUBLIC SERVICES.............................................................................................................................139

5.16. RECREATION.....................................................................................................................................146

5.17. TRANSPORTATION..........................................................................................................................149

5.18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.....................................................................................................155

5.19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................159 The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plance Exemption Checklist iii

5.20. WILDFIRE ...........................................................................................................................................166

6. REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................170 Tables
TABLE 2-1: SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS .........................................................5 TABLE 3-1: RESIDENTIAL UNIT SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 19 TABLE 3-2: PARKING SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 20 TABLE AES-1: CONSISTENCY WITH SJDC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.............................................................................. 47 TABLE AQ-1: SCAQMD REGIONAL DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS ................................................................................ 57 TABLE AQ-2: REGIONAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES......................................................................... 58 TABLE AQ-3: REGIONAL PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS............................................................................................ 58 TABLE AQ-4: PROJECT LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS........................................................................................ 59 TABLE AQ-5: PROJECT LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ........................................................................................... 60 TABLE AQ-6: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISK........................................................................................................ 61 TABEL AQ-7: HEALTH RISKS FROM PROJECT CONSTRUCTION WITH TIER 4 EQUIPMENT ................................................... 62 TABLE E-1: ENERGY CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES DURING PROJECT OPERATION ................................................................ 79 TABLE GHG-1: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS............................................................................................ 92 TABLE GHG-2: PROJECT TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS............................................................................................................ 92 TABLE GHG-3: GHG EMISSIONS WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF PDF GHG-1................................................................... 93 TABLE GHG-4: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH WRCOG SUBREGIONAL CAP GHG REDUCTION MEASURES................ 94 TABLE N-1: SUMMARY OF LONG-TERM AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS.............................................................121 TABLE N-2: CITY OF SAN JACINTO MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NOISE EXPOSURE FROM MOBILE SOURCES ........................125 TABLE N-3: CITY OF SAN JACINTO ALLOWABLE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL DUE TO STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES ...........125 TABLE N-4: CITY OF SAN JACINTO ALLOWABLE INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL DUE TO STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES............125 TABLE N-5: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS...................................................................................................126 TABLE N-6: ONSITE CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS AT THE NEARBY SENSITIVE RECEPTORS .........................................127 TABLE N-7: EXISTING YEAR PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE CONTRIBUTIONS............................................................................128 TABLE N-8: FUTURE YEAR 2045 PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE CONTRIBUTIONS....................................................................129 TABLE N-9: PROPOSED RESIDENCES EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS ...................................................................130 TABLE N-10: PROPOSED ACTIVITY AREAS OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS AT THE NEAREST RESIDENCES ...........................131 TABLE N-11: VIBRATION SOURCE AMPLITUDES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ..........................................................132 TABLE PS-1: STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR ...................................................................................................................142 TABLE T-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION............................................................................................................................152 TABLE T-2: VMT ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................................................152 Figures
FIGURE 2-1: REGIONAL LOCATION........................................................................................................................................7 FIGURE 2-2: LOCAL VICINITY.................................................................................................................................................9 FIGURE 2-3: AERIAL VIEW................................................................................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 2-4: EXISTING SITE ................................................................................................................................................. 13 FIGURE 2-5: EXISTING LAND USE........................................................................................................................................ 15 FIGURE 2-6: EXISTING ZONING.......................................................................................................................................... 17 FIGURE 3-1: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN................................................................................................................................. 25 FIGURE 3-2: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP ................................................................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 3-3: CONCEPTUAL STREETSCENES .......................................................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 3-4: LANDSCAPE PLAN........................................................................................................................................... 31 The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plance Exemption Checklist iv
FIGURE 3-5A: COMMUNITY PARK A................................................................................................................................... 33 FIGURE 3-5A: COMMUNITY PARK B.................................................................................................................................... 35 FIGURE 3-6: WQMP BASIN............................................................................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 3-7: WALL PLAN.................................................................................................................................................... 39 FIGURE 5-1: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS ..............................................................................................................123 Appendices

APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

APPENDIX B SUBSEQUENT AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM FOR THE REQUIRED STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE “ESPLANADE COLLECTION” PROJECT, SAN JACINTO

APPENDIX C BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION REPORT & MULTIPLE SPECIES

HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

APPENDIX D CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY

APPENDIX E GEOTECHNICAL AND INFILTRATION EVALUATION

APPENDIX F PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX G PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX H HYDROLOGY REPORT

APPENDIX I WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

APPENDIX J NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS

APPENDIX K VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plance Exemption Checklist v
Acronym List
AB Assembly Bill
ACM Asbestos Containing Materials
ACOE Army Corps of Engineers
ADT Average Daily Trips
amsl Above Mean Sea Level
APN Assessor Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BACT Best Available Control Technology
bgs Below Ground Surface
BMPs Best Management Practices
BRA Biological Resources Assessment
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Cal OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalRecycle California Department of Resources and Recycling CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDOF California Department of Finance
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFD Community Facilities District
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO Carbon Monoxide
CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition
CRPR California Rare Plant Ranks
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CY Cubic Yards
dBA Decibels A
DP/S Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards DPF Diesel Particulate Filter
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substance Control
du/ac Dwelling Units per Acre
DWQ Department of Water Quality
EIC Eastern Information Center
EMFAC2021 California Emissions Factor Model, Version 2021 EMWD Eastern Municipal Water District
EMWD Eastern Municipal Water District
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plance Exemption Checklist vi
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
GHG Greenhouse Gas
gpcd Gallons per Capita per Day
GPU EIR San Jacinto General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report GPU General Plan Update
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
HANS Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy HI Hazard Index
hp Horsepower
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Condition
HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
JPR Joint Project Review
kBTU British thermal unit
kWh Kilowatt-hours
Leq Equivalent Continuous Sound Level
LID Low Impact Development
LOS Level of Service
LST Localized Significance Threshold
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MEI Maximally Exposed Individual
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MICR Maximum Individual Cancer Risk
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MSHCP Multiple Specific Habitat Conservation Plan
MTCO2e Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
MU Mixed Use
MWD Metropolitan Water District
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NOI Notice of Intent
NOx Nitric Oxide
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
PDFs Project Design Features
PDP Planned Development Permit
PM Particulate Matter
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
PV Photovoltaic
RCA Regional Conservation Authority
RCFCD Riverside County Flood Control District
RCFD Riverside County Fire Department
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plance Exemption Checklist vii
RCLS Riverside County Library System
RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model
RCSD Riverside County Sheriff Department
REC Recognized Environmental Conditions
RMS Root Mean Square
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
RWRF Regional Water Reclamation Facility
SB Senate Bill
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Government
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SCG Southern California Gas
SCH State Clearinghouse
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SF Square Feet
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SIP State Implementation Plan
SJDC San Jacinto Development Code
SJMC San Jacinto Municipal Code
SJUSD San Jacinto Unified School District
SLF Sacred Lands File
SOx Sulfur Dioxide
SP Service Population
SPDR Site Plan Design Review
SRA Source Receptor Areas
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TPA Transit Priority Area
TTM Tentative Tract Map
UCR University of California at Riverside
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Services
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VdB Vibration Decibels
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plance Exemption Checklist viii
This page intentionally left blank.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
1 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. OVERVIEW OF CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183
This CEQA Streamlining analysis evaluates whether the potential environmental impacts of the Project are addressed in the San Jacinto General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (GPU EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] # 2020120312) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15183 (CEQA Streamlining Checklist).

As set forth in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183:
a) CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. b) In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:

1. Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located,

2. Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent,

3. Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or

4. Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.
c) If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.

In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. City of Turlock, 138 Cal.App.4th 273 (2006), the court stated, “The foregoing construction of the terms “peculiar to” and “project-specific” promotes efficiency by reducing delay and needless paperwork and, therefore, is consistent with the purpose underlying the streamlined review of Guidelines section 15183.”
The court went on to state that “Applying these definitions, a physical change in the environment will be peculiar to the [Project] if that physical change belongs exclusively or especially to the [Project] or if it is characteristic of only the [Project].” For example, impacts related to archaeological resources are not peculiar to the proposed project, since archaeological impacts with mitigation are common with many development projects in the state.

Similarly in Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy, 140 Cal.App.4th 911 (2006) the court found that because the project would have significant air quality impacts and because the General Plan EIR concluded the same, there was nothing peculiar about the project. There is nothing peculiar about a project with significant impacts if the EIR already analyzed and determined those projects to be significant.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
2 Most recently, in Lucas v. City of Pomona (2023) the Court of Appeal held that “[b]ecause Guidelines section 15183 requires an agency to examine whether a project’s environmental effects were analyzed as significant impacts in a prior EIR on a general plan or zoning action with which the project is consistent…. the substantial evidence standard applies.”

1.2. SAN JACINTO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
On November 15, 2022, the City of San Jacinto adopted a comprehensive update to its General Plan.

Envision San Jacinto – General Plan 2040 (General Plan, GPU) consists of the following mandatory and additional State elements: Land Use; Economic Development; Mobility; Public Safety; Resource Management; Environmental Justice and Housing. The City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element was originally adopted as part of the City’s comprehensive GPU (in February 2022). However, the City has since made minor revisions to the adopted Housing Element in November 2023 response to comments from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Housing Element serves as the City’s housing plan and identifies the goals, policies, and programs the City intends to implement to address housing needs and constraints.

The GPU EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects from implementation of the General Plan Update (GPU), and development pursuant to the GPU is subject to mitigation measures identified in the GPU EIR and the requirements of the City’s Development Code. A project is consistent with the GPU if the development density does not exceed what was contemplated and analyzed for the parcel(s) in the GPU EIR and complies with the associated standards applicable to that development density (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(i)(2)). Development density standards can include the number of dwelling units per acre (du/ac), the number of people in a given area, floor area ratio (FAR), and other measures of building intensity, building height, size limitations, and use restrictions.

The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use and a zoning designation of Mixed Use (MU). The GPU states that areas designated Mixed Use provide opportunities for mixtures of commercial, office, and residential uses in the same building, on the same parcel of land, or within the same area. The MU designation allows residential densities between 10 and 36 du/ac.

1.3. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project proposes to subdivide the 23.54-acre site with 249 single-family residential units, which would result in a density of 10.57 du/ac. Additionally, the proposed Project would include landscaping, parking, private roadways, recreation facilities, including a community park facility, dual purpose water quality management basin and open play lawn, and a Class I multi-use trail, and utility and stormwater improvements. The Project site is currently undeveloped and regularly disced.

1.4. APPLICABILITY OF STATE CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183
As set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(d), the additional environmental review streamlining applies to projects which meet the following conditions:

1. The project is consistent with:
a. A community plan adopted as part of a general plan,
b. A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development, or
c. A general plan of a local agency, and

2. An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
3 Additionally, the environmental review streamlining applies only to the extent that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the applicable general plan are implemented by the public agency with jurisdiction to require such mitigation measures (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(e)).

The GPU EIR analyzed the impacts of buildout of the GPU. As discussed in this analysis, the Project is consistent with the land uses identified for the site in the GPU. The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use Residential and a zoning designation of MU. The Project would subdivide the site and develop 249 single-family residences, which is within the assumptions for land use and growth projections of the GPU.

As such, the GPU EIR adequately anticipated and analyzed the impacts of development consistent with the GPU, identified applicable uniformly applied policies/standards and mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts of such development, and required implementation of the uniformly applied policies/standards and mitigation measures where applicable. The Project follows and implements the GPU EIR guidance without triggering any new or unanticipated significant impacts. The Project, therefore, qualifies for an exemption from additional environmental review as set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Specifically, the Project qualifies for streamlining because the following findings can be made:

1. The Project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. The Project would redevelop the site with 249 single-family residences at a density of 10.57 du/ac which is consistent with the uses and density analyzed in the GPU EIR and allowed by the Mixed Use designation, which permits residential densities up to 36 du/ac.

2. There are no Project specific effects which are peculiar to the Project or its site, and which the GPU EIR failed to analyze as significant effects. The Project site is an undeveloped vacant site that is regularly disced, and is surrounded by roadways, urban development, and similar undeveloped parcels that are designated for urban development by the GPU. The Project site is similar to other properties in the area, including its land use designation and zoning. The Project site does not support any peculiar environmental features, and the Project would not result in any peculiar effects.

In addition, as explained further in the CEQA Streamlining Checklist below, Project impacts were adequately analyzed by the GPU EIR. The GPU EIR identified that the GPU would result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts related to five topic areas that could not be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels through mitigation measures. These include agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gases and noise. The GPU EIR also identified 15 environmental impact areas for which impacts were determined to be less than significant: aesthetics; cultural resources; energy; geology and seismic hazards; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use; mineral resources; population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems and wildfire.

As detailed in herein, the proposed Project would not result in impacts to agriculture and forestry resources, would result in less than significant impacts related to biological resources, air quality, and noise, and would result in similar significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions that would primarily occur from vehicle and truck emissions that cannot be regulated by the City. Thus, there are no Project specific effects which are peculiar to the Project or the site, and nothing that the GPU EIR failed to analyze as significant effects.

3. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which the GPU EIR failed to evaluate. The Project is consistent with the density and land use characteristics of the development considered by the GPU EIR and would represent a small part of the growth that was forecasted for build-out of the GPU. The GPU EIR considered the incremental impacts of the Project, and as explained The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
4 further in the CEQA Streamlining Checklist, below, no new Project-specific impacts are anticipated.

Therefore, the Project would not result in any potentially significant cumulative impacts which were not previously evaluated in the GPU EIR. Additionally, the Project does not propose any off-site improvements, and therefore, would not result in any potentially significant impacts beyond that which was evaluated in the GPU EIR.

4. There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the GPU EIR. As documented in the CEQA Streamlining Checklist below, no new information has been identified which would result in a determination that the Project would have a more severe impact than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

The Project will undertake feasible mitigation measures specified in the GPU EIR. As explained in the CEQA Streamlining Checklist below, the Project will undertake uniformly applied policies/standards feasible mitigation measures specified in the GPU EIR and subsequently adopted by the City. These GPU EIR mitigation measures will be implemented through Project design, compliance with regulations and ordinances, the Project’s conditions of approval, and City permit processing.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
5 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1. PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is located in the southeastern portion of the City of San Jacinto within Riverside County in the unsectioned Township 5 South, Range 1 West in the San Jacinto (7.5-minute) Quadrangle. The 23.54-acre Project site consists of one parcel identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 439-180-011. The Project site is bound by East Esplanade Avenue to the north, South Hewitt Street to the east, and East Commonwealth Avenue to the south, and commercial and residential uses to the west. Regional access to the site is provided via State Route 74 and State Route 79 (known locally as West Ramona Expressway). Local access to the site is provided via Irvine East Esplanade Avenue, South Hewitt Street, and Commonwealth Avenue. The Project site and the surrounding area are shown in Figure 2-1, Regional Location and Figure 2-2, Local Vicinity.

2.2. EXISTING LAND USE
The Project site is vacant and undeveloped and sits at an elevation of approximately 1,400 feet above mean seal level (amsl). Existing vegetation is limited to weeds and low grasses, as the site is regularly disced.

Existing conditions of the Project site and adjacent uses are shown in Figures 2-3, Aerial View and Figures 2- 4, Site Photos.

2.3. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use (MU) and a zoning designation of Mixed Use (MU). The Mixed Use General Plan land use designation provides opportunities for mixtures of commercial, office, and residential uses in the same building, on the same parcel of land, or within the same area. The MU zoning district allows for a variety of residential developments including single-use projects comprised of only single-family residences. The MU zone allows residential densities between 10 and 36 dwelling units per gross acre. Refer to Figure 2-5, Existing Land Use and Figure 2-6, Existing Zoning.

2.4. SURROUNDING LAND USES
The surrounding land uses are shown in Figure 2-3, Aeiral View, Figure 2-5, Existing Land Use, and Figure 2- 6, Existing Zoning, and described below.
• North: East Esplanade Avenue followed by residential uses. • East: South Hewitt Street followed by a single-family residential subdivision that is under construction. • South: East Commonwealth Avenue followed by vacant and undeveloped land. • West: Commercial uses, single-family residence, and vacant and undeveloped land.

Table 2-1: Surrounding General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations Direction General Plan Land Use Zoning
North Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential Medium Density (RM) East Specific Plan Area (SPA), Medium
Density Residential (MDR)
Specific Plan Area (SPA), Residential
Medium Density (RM)
South Mixed Use (MU) Mixed Use (MU)
West Commercial (C) Commercial General (CG)
Source: General Plan Land Use Map (City of San Jacinto, 2022b) and Zoning Map (City of San Jacinto, 2022c).

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
6 This page intentionally left blank.

The Esplanade Collection Figure 2-1
City of San Jacinto
Regional Location
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
8 This page intentionally left blank.

Local Vicinity
The Esplanade Collection Figure 2-2
City of San Jacinto
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
10 This page intentionally left blank.

Aerial View
The Esplanade Collection Figure 2-3
City of San Jacinto
Commonwealth Ave
Esplanade Ave Hewitt St
Girard St
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
12 This page intentionally left blank.

Site Photos
The Esplanade Collection Figure 2-4
City of San Jacinto
View of the project site from the northeast corner at Esplanade Ave and Hewitt St.

Southwest corner of site from Commonwealth Ave and Hewitt St.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
14 This page intentionally left blank.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto
Existing Land Use
Figure 2-5
Mo
u
n
t
a
ni Ave
Washington Ave
Esplanade Ave
Menlo Ave
Hewitt St
Park Ave
Main St
Commonwealth
C
7th St
Ramona Expy
mbia St
State St
and Ave
79 RANCHO

SAN JACINTO SP
SP 01-00
Ramona Expy
Soboba Rd
Mounta ni Ave
Ave
Soboba Rd
State St
Pa ml
Washington Ave
wood Ave
Esplanade Ave
Soboba Rd
State St
Hewitt St
Main St
Commonwealth
Lyon Ave
t
Ramona Blvd
Camino los Banos
7th St
Record Rd
Young St
Potter Rd
Lake Park Dr
79 Ramona Expy
Gilman Springs Rd
General Plan Land Use Map

E M E T

B E A U M O N T
0 ½ 1
Miles
San Jacinto
River
Legend
City of San Jacinto
San Jacinto Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Land Use Designation
VLDR: Very Low Density Residential
LDR: Low Density Residential
MDR: Medium Density Residential
HDR: High Density Residential
VHDR: Very High Density Residential
MU: Mixed Use
C: Commercial
DV: Downtown Village
BP: Business Park
I: Industrial
PI: Public/Institutional
OS: Open Space
P: Park
SPA: Specific Plan Area
Water
Sources: City of San Jacinto; Riverside County. Adopted: November 15, 2022.

TRAILS SP
SP 01-03
SOBOBA

SPRINGS SP
SP 01-85
RANCHO

SAN JACINTO SP
SP 01-00
Project Site
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
16 This page intentionally left blank.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto
Existing Zoning
Figure 2-6
Mo
u
n
t
a
ni Ave
Washington Ave
Esplanade Ave
Menlo Ave
Hewitt St
Park Ave
Main St
Commonwealth
C
7th St
Ramona Expy
mbia St
State St
and Ave
79 RANCHO

SAN JACINTO SP
SP 01-00
Ramona Expy
Soboba Rd
Mounta ni Ave
Ave
Soboba Rd
State St
Pa ml
wood Ave
Esplanade Ave
Soboba Rd
State St
Hewitt St
Main St
Lyon Ave
t
Ramona Blvd
Camino los Banos
7th St
Record Rd
Young St
Potter Rd
Lake Park Dr
79 Ramo
Gilman Springs Rd
Zoning Map 2022

B E A U M O N T
0 ½ 1
Miles
San Jacinto
River
Legend
San Jacinto City Limits
San Jacinto Sphere of Influence
Neighboring City
Specific Plan Area
RAAB Combining Overlay Zone
Housing Overlay
Residential Zones
RE - Residential Estate
RR - Rural Residential
RL - Residential, Low Density
RM - Residential, Medium Density
RH - Residential, High Density
RVH - Residential, Very High Density
Commercial and Industrial Zones
CN - Commercial Neighborhood
CG - Commercial General
CR - Commercial Regional
BP - Business Park
OP - Office Park
IL - Industrial Light
IH - Industrial Heavy
Mixed Use Zones
MU - Mixed Use
MU-E - Mixed Use - Entertaintainment
DV - Downtown Village
Special Purpose Zones
OSG - Open Space General
OSR - Open Space Recreation
PI - Public Institutional
SP - Specific Plan
W - Water Source

TRAILS SP
SP 01-03
SOBOBA

SPRINGS SP
SP 01-85
RANCHO
November 15, 2022
Project Site
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
18 This page intentionally left blank.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
19 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project applicant proposes to subdivide the approximately 23.54-acre parcel and develop the site with 249 single-family residential units. Additionally, the proposed Project includes landscaping, parking, private roadways, recreation facilities, including a community park facility, dual purpose water quality management basin and open play lawn, and a Class I multi-use trail, and utility and stormwater improvements. Figure 3- 1, Conceptual Site Plan, illustrates the Project as proposed. The Project requires approval of a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) (see Figure 3-2, Tentative Tract Map), Planned Development Permit (PDP), and Site Plan Design Review (SPDR) from the City of San Jacinto.

3.2. PROJECT FEATURES
Development Summary
The proposed Project would construct 249 single-family residential units on the 23.54-acre site, which would result in a density of 10.57 du/ac. The units would be comprised of two types of residences (alley cluster and small lot detached) that are grouped into six unit plans. The Project proposes 126 alley cluster units and 123 small lot detached units. The residential units would have 4 or 5 bedrooms and 2.5 or 3 bathrooms and would range in size from 1,810 to 2,303 square feet (SF). Table 2 provides a summary of the proposed residences.

Table 3-1: Residential Unit Summary
Unit Plan Unit Square
Footage
Bedrooms Bathrooms No. of Units
Alley Cluster
1 1,810 4 2.5 49
2 1,950 5 3 42
3 2,050 4 (optional 5) 3 35
Total Alley Cluster Units 126
Small Lot Detached
4 2,002 4 2.5 50
5 2,148 4 (optional 5) 3 38
6 2,303 5 3 35
Total Small Lot Detached Units 123
The proposed residences would be two stories with a maximum height of 29 feet, measured from finish grade to top of highest roof ridges. The residences would have a variety of architectural elements, including articulated massing and finish material palates, and have design characteristics consistent with traditional ranch, Spanish, cottage, bungalow, and farmhouse styles. Conceptual renderings of the proposed residential structures are provided in Figures 3-3, Conceptual Street Scene. The Alley Cluster residences would have 500 SF of private open space per unit and the Small Lot Detached residences would have 680 SF of private open space per unit.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
20 Open Space, Recreation, and Landscaping
The Project would install approximately 94,306 SF of new drought tolerant landscaping that requires low water and maintenance as required by the San Jacinto Municipal Code (SJMC). This would include 1-gallon, 5-gallon, and 15-gallon trees; and a variety of shrubs and groundcovers. Trees would be installed adjacent to the perimeter masonry walls in the landscaped planter adjacent to the sidewalk. The irrigation system would be designed for water conservation and in compliance with applicable municipal codes and state mandate regulations (AB 1881). Figure 3-4, Conceptual Landscape Plan, illustrates the site’s landscape plan as proposed.

The Project proposes 58,420 SF (1.3-acre) of onsite common open space area inclusive of a community park and a pedestrian paseo. The community park would be located at the center of the site and include a children’s playground, multi-purpose lawn, bench seating, a shade structure with picnic tables and barbecues, two pickleball courts, and water features. Figure 3-5a, Community Park A, and Figure 3-5b, Community Park B, illustrates the proposed community park. The Project also includes a water quality basin that doubles as an open play lawn located in the northwest corner of the Project site. Figure 3-6, WQMP Basin, illustrates the proposed dual purpose water quality basin and open play lawn. In addition, a pedestrian paseo is proposed to connect Hewitt Street to the community park. The pedestrian paseo includes exercise stations, ornamental landscaping, a meandering walkway, and gated access to a proposed Class I trail. Gated access to residential parcels would be implemented along the pedestrian paseo to control entry to the residential backyards.

The Project also includes sidewalks throughout the site that would provide pedestrian circulation around the site, to the proposed parks, and to adjacent offsite areas. The Project would construct a Class I trail, multiuse trail, along East Esplanade Avenue, Commonwealth Avenue, and South Hewitt Street. Additionally, the trail would extend on to the Project site connecting to the community parks.

Circulation and Parking
Access to the Project site would be provided via two 40-foot-wide driveways, one on Commonwealth Avenue and one on Esplanade Avenue. Both driveways would include a landscaped median and decorative hardscape. Internal drive aisles ranging from 32 to 40-feet-wide would provide circulation throughout the site.

The Project would include a total of 907 parking spaces. All Alley Cluster residences would include two enclosed garage spaces for a total of 252 garage stalls. All Small Lot Detached residences would include two enclosed garage spaces and two driveway stalls for a total of 492 parking stalls. Additionally, the Project would provide 163 on street stalls throughout the site. Table 3 provides a summary of the Project's proposed parking.

Table 3-2: Parking Summary
Product 1 – Alley Cluster Product 2 – Small Lot Detached 252 Garage Stalls
100 On Street Stalls
246 Garage Stalls
246 Driveway Stalls
63 On Street Stalls
Overall Site Total: 907 Stalls
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
21 Fences and Walls
The Project proposes the installation of a 6-foot-high masonry block wall around the perimeter of the site.

The existing masonry wall along the west Project boundary is to remain. A combination of 6-feet-high masonry block wall and vinyl fencing would be installed around the interior side yards and backyards of each residence. Additionally, the Project would include 6-foot-high tube steel fencing around the water quality basin/open play lawn in the northwest portion of the site. A 6-foot-high tube steel gate would also be installed along Hewitt Street to provide pedestrian access to the site. Fences, walls, and gates proposed as part of the Project are illustrated in Figure 3-7, Wall Plan.

Solar
Consistent with the 2022 CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24 Part 6), the Project would include photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on the rooftops of each residence and meet all other Title 24 Part 6 requirements related to energy efficiency and low impact development (LID) standards.

Lighting
Proposed outdoor lighting would be typical of single-family residential uses and would consist of wallmounted lighting, pole-mounted lights along the proposed internal roadways. All of the proposed Project’s outdoor lighting would be directed downward and shielded to minimize offsite and would be designed in compliance with the provisions San Jacinto Development Code (SJDC) Section 17.300.080 (Outdoor Light and Glare).

Infrastructure Improvements
Gas and Electric
The Project would be serviced by Southern California Gas (SCG) for gas and Southern California Edison (SCE) for electricity. The Project would install underground electric and gas lines that would connect to existing SCE and SCG infrastructure in adjacent roadways.

Water
The Project would be serviced by Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) for water services. The Project would install new onsite water lines which would connect to the existing 12-inch water line in Esplanade Avenue and the existing 8-inch water line in Commonwealth Avenue.

Sewer
The Project would be serviced by the City of San Jacinto for sewer services. The Project would install new onsite sewer lines which would connect to the existing 8-inch sewer line in Esplanade Avenue.

Drainage
The proposed Project would install an infiltration basin in the northwest portion of the site to capture and treat stormwater flows. Treated stormwater captured in the infiltration basin would exit the site through onsite storm water drains which would then flow westerly along Esplanade Avenue towards Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCD) storm drain Line F. The Project would also install a 1,300 linear foot 24-inch diameter storm drain line in Esplanade Avenue, between the northwest corner of the site and the existing storm drain line F in San Jacinto Avenue.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
22 3.3. PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
The following Project Design Feature (PDF) is incorporated into the proposed Project’s design in order to reduce or avoid potential impacts specifically analyzed in the Exemption Checklist below. The PDF will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure implementation.

PDF GHG-1: Pursuant to General Plan Action RM-4o, prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of San Jacinto demonstrating implementation and compliance with the following emission reduction measures. Implementation of the following measures will be required prior to building permits and is considered to be applicable, feasible, and effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated by the project:
• All appliances within the project shall be energy star-rated appliances. • All water fixtures within the project shall be water efficient (toilets/urinals (1.5 gallons per minute [gpm] or less), showerheads (2.0 gpm or less), and faucets (1.28 gpm or less)). • Ensure all parking areas are wired for capability of future EV charging and include EV charging stations that exceed regulatory requirements.
• Provide onsite solar/renewable energy for at least 25 percent of the required electricity demand from the project.
• Ensure project is designed to achieve energy-efficient buildings exceeding Title 24 standards by at least 10 percent.

PDF N-1: Construction Plans. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Building Department shall ensure all construction plans, specifications, and permits include a note that the large bulldozers and any other construction equipment that is powered by a greater than 150 horsepower engine shall not be operated within 10 feet of existing off-site structures. The use of a small bulldozer (i.e., D1, D2, or D3 dozers) or other type of equipment that is less than 150 horsepower is permitted to perform all grading activities that are located within 10 feet of any off-site structure.

3.4. CONSTRUCTION
Construction activities for the Project would occur over approximately 18 months, beginning the third quarter of 2025 and ending the fourth quarter of 2026. Construction would occur in the following stages: (1) site preparation and grading; (2) building construction; (3) paving; and (4) architectural coatings. Construction activities would be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Section

8.40.090.

The grading activities for development of the proposed Project include a cut of 41,961 cubic yards (CY) of soil and a fill of 18,057 CY of soil totaling a net export of approximately 6,111 CY of soil.

3.5. PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT(S) FOR ANALYZING STATE CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183
• San Jacinto General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report, certified November 16, 2022.

State Clearinghouse Number 2020120312.

3.6. LOCATION OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT(S) ANALYZING THE

EFFECTS OF INFILL PROJECTS
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
23 • San Jacinto Planning Department, 595 S San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto, CA 92583; and accessible online on the City’s website: https://sanjacinto.generalplan.org/documents-amp-maps

3.7. DISCRETIONARY ACTION CHECKLIST
The following discretionary approvals from the City, as Lead Agency, are anticipated to be necessary for implementation of the proposed Project:
• Approval of Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 38872
• Approval of Planned Development Permit (PDP)
• Approval of Site Plan Development Review (SPDR)
• Approvals and permits necessary to execute the proposed Project, including but not limited to, grading permit, building permits, etc.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
24 This page intentionally left blank.

The Esplanade Collection Figure 3-1
City of San Jacinto
Conceptual Site Plan
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
26 This page intentionally left blank.

The Esplanade Collection Figure 3-2
City of San Jacinto
Tentative Tract Map
Legend
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
28 This page intentionally left blank.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto
Conceptual Streetscenes
Figure 3-3

STREETSCE

ARCHITECTUR

SAN JACINTO ESPLANADE COLLECTION - DETACHED HOMES

PACIFICA INVESTMENTS
333 City Blvd. West, # 1700
0 4 8 12
PRODUCT 1 - SMALL LOT DETACHED
PRODUCT 1 - ALLEY CLUSTER

STREETSCENES

ARCHITECTURE

ACINTO ESPLANADE COLLECTION - DETACHED HOMES

NVESTMENTS
. West, # 1700
0 4 8 12
A
PRODUCT 1 - SMALL LOT DETACHED
PRODUCT 1 - ALLEY CLUSTER STREETSCE
JAN 8, 2024 5256 S. Mission Road, S
Bonsall, CA
www.summarch.com p.760.7

ARCHITECTUR

SAN JACINTO ESPLANADE COLLECTION - DETACHED HOMES

PACIFICA INVESTMENTS
333 City Blvd. West, # 1700
Orange, CA 92868
(714) 609-7257
0 4 8 12
PRODUCT 1 - SMALL LOT DETACHED
PRODUCT 1 - ALLEY CLUSTER

STREETSCENES
JAN 8, 2024 5256 S. Mission Road, Ste. 404
Bonsall, CA 92003
www.summarch.com p.760.724.1198

ARCHITECTURE

ACINTO ESPLANADE COLLECTION - DETACHED HOMES

NVESTMENTS
. West, # 1700
nge, CA 92868
(714) 609-7257
0 4 8 12
A
PRODUCT 1 - SMALL LOT DETACHED
PRODUCT 1 - ALLEY CLUSTER
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
30 This page intentionally left blank.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto
Landscape Plan
Figure 3-4
CANYON L.1
PARK
STUDIO
949.612.5191
canyonparkstudio.com
910 Dogwood Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627 June 26, 2024
San Jacinto Investments 2023, LLC

ESPLANADE COLLECTION - SAN JACINTO, CA L A N D S C A P E

A R C H I T E C T U R E CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
0’ 200’
SCALE: 1” = 50’
50’ 100’
PRODUCT 2
(SMALL LOT DETACHED)
PRODUCT 1
(ALLEY CLUSTER)
C O M M O N W E A L T H A V E.

E S P L A N A D E A V E .

VACANT
LAND
VACANT
LAND

EXISTING

COMMERCIAL

EXISTING

TOWNHOMES

STREET A

STREET JSTREET I

STREET K

STREET B

STREET L

STREET M

STREET N

STREET O

STREET C

STREET D

STREET E

STREET F

STREET G

STREET H

PEDESTRIAN PASEO (LOT M)
- exercise station
- ornamental planting
- meandering walkway
- direct connections to residential backyards
- gated access to public Class I trail
- see enlargement sheet L.6
COMMONWEALTH AVE.
- meandering concrete walk
- see Civil plans for sections
- see Public Streetscape Plant Schedules, sheet L.2

PROJECT ENTRY
- upgraded vehicular paving
- flowering accent trees
- enhanced plant palette

COMMUNITY PARK (LOT A)
- pickleball courts
- barbecues
- picnic tables
- see enlargement sheet L.5

ESPLANADE AVENUE
- meandering concrete Class I trail
- see Civil plans for sections
- see Public Streetscape Plant Schedules, sheet L.2

HEWITT STREET
- meandering concrete Class I trail
- see Civil plans for sections
- see Public Streetscape Plant Schedules, sheet L.2

PEDESTRIAN PASEO (LOT L)
- exercise stations
- ornamental planting
- meandering walkway
- direct connections to residential backyards
- gated access to public Class I trail
- see enlargement sheet L.6

DUAL USE WQMP BASIN / OPEN PLAY

LAWN (LOT C)
- shaded seating area
- turf play lawn
- planted slopes
- see Civil plans for more information
- see enlargement sheet L.7

COMMUNITY PARK (LOT B)
- children’s playground
- barbecues
- picnic tables
- multi-purpose lawn
- see enlargement sheet L.4

PROJECT ENTRY & POCKET PARK (LOT F)
- upgraded vehicular paving
- accent trees
- see enlargement sheet L.3

PEDESTRIAN GREENBELT
- meandering walkway
- connection to primary landscape open
spaces and public trails
- benches

H E W I T T S T R E E T

LARGE USABLE OPEN LAWN AREA
(6,200 S.F.) WITH MIN. 100’ DIMENSION
CHILDREN’S PLAYGROUND

BARBECUE FACILITY WITH MULTIPLE

GRILLS AND PICNIC TABLES

COURT FACILITIES (PICKLEBALL

COURTS)

JOGGING AND WALKING TRAILS WITH

EXERCISE EQUIPMENT

WATER FEATURES

DUAL USE BASIN / OPEN PLAY LAWN
AMENITIES PROVIDED:

SIX (6) AMENITIES REQUIRED BASED ON 249
UNITS
SEVEN (7) AMENITIES PROVIDED
Open Space Key
per San Jacinto Municipal Code section 17.420.040
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 7
6 6
5 5
5 5
4 3
3 2
1 The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
32 This page intentionally left blank.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto
Community Park
Figure 3-5a
CANYON L.4
PARK
STUDIO
949.612.5191
canyonparkstudio.com
910 Dogwood Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627 January 8, 2024
San Jacinto Investments 2023, LLC

ESPLANADE COLLECTION - SAN JACINTO, CA L A N D S C A P E

A R C H I T E C T U R E COMMUNITY PARK ENLARGEMENT
(LOT A)
SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”’
0’ 8’ 16’ 24’ 40’
MATCHING HT. PALMS

BIKE RACKS
BENCH SEATING, TYP.

UPGRADED PAVING AT

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

MULTI-PURPOSE
LAWN (6,200 SF)

WITH NATURAL TURF
100’
LOT 149 LOT 148
S T R E E T “I”
S T R E E T “A”
CHILDREN’S PLAYGROUND
(2,350 S.F)
- resilient su facing
PLAY STRUCTURE (AGE 5-12 YRS.).

BOBBLE RIDER

ACORN SEATS
PLAY STRUCTURE (AGE 2-5 YRS.)
BENCH SEATING, TYP.

SHADE STRUCTURE

MASONRY WALL & WITH PICNIC TABLE

BUFFER PLANTING
at PARK PERIMITER

PEDESTRIAN TRAIL

SHRUBS &
GROUNDCOVER, TYP.

MATCHING HT. PALMS

BARBECUES & ASH URN
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
34 This page intentionally left blank.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto
Community Park
Figure 3-5b
CANYON L.5
PARK
STUDIO
949.612.5191
canyonparkstudio.com
910 Dogwood Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627 January 8, 2024
San Jacinto Investments 2023, LLC

ESPLANADE COLLECTION - SAN JACINTO, CA L A N D S C A P E

A R C H I T E C T U R E COMMUNITY PARK ENLARGEMENT
(LOT B)
SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”’
0’ 8’ 16’ 24’ 40’
S T R E E T “A”
S T R E E T “ E ”
S T R E E T “ D ”

MULTI-PURPOSE
LAWN

MULTI-PURPOSE
LAWN
UPGRADED PAVING AT BENCH SEATING, TYP.

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
MATCHING HT. PALMS

PICKLEBALL COURTS
- (2) two total

BARBECUE AREA
- pedestal barbecues
- picnic benches
- central water feature
- decomposed granite paving

TO PEDESTRIAN
PASEO
LOT 64 LOT 65

MASONRY WALL &

BUFFER PLANTING
at PARK PERIMITER

ACCENT SHADE TREE

SHRUBS &
GROUNDCOVER, TYP.

PRIVATE
YARD, TYP.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
36 This page intentionally left blank.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San
WQMP Basin
Figure 3-6
CANYON L.7
PARK
STUDIO
949.612.5191
canyonparkstudio.com
910 Dogwood Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92627 January 8, 2024
San Jacinto Investments 2023, LLC

ESPLANADE COLLECTION - SAN JACINTO, CA L A N D S C A P E

A R C H I T E C T U R E
0’ 32’
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
8’ 16’

DOG PARK / WQMP BASIN ENLARGEMENT
(LOT C)
S T R E E T “J ”
S T R E E T “K”
E S P L A N A D E A V E.

MAINTENANCE GATES AND RAMP
- see detail E, sheet L.
6’ HT. TUBE-STEEL VIEW

FENCE WITH PILASTERS

AT BASIN PERIMITER
- see detail B, sheet L.

GATED ENTRY
- see detail , sheet L.8

NATURAL TURF AT BOTTOM

OF BASIN

GATED ACCESS TO

PUBLIC TRAIL
- see detail , sheet L.8

ACCESSABLE WALKWAY

TO BOTTOM OF BASIN

SHRUBS, GROUNDCOVER
& TREES ALONG BASIN

EDGE SLOPE

TRASH BIN

SHADED SEATING AREA

EXISTING

COMMERCIAL
LOT 169
LOT 168
LOT 247
LOT 170

PRIVATE
YARD, TYP.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
38 This page intentionally left blank.

The Esplanade Collection Figure 3-7
City of San Jacinto
Wall Plan
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
40 This page intentionally left blank.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
41 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

4.1. BACKGROUND
Project Title:

The Esplanade Collection
Lead Agency:

City of San Jacinto
595 S. San Jacinto Avenue
San Jacinto, CA 92583
Lead Agency Contact:

Kevin White, Planning Manager
Project Location:

The Project site is located north of Commonwealth Avenue, south of East Esplanade Avenue and west of South Hewitt Street (APN 439-180-011).

Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Pacifica Investments
333 City Boulevard West, Suite 1700
Orange, CA 92868
General Plan and Zoning Designation:

The General Plan land use designation is Mixed Use and the site is zoned Mixed Use (MU).

Project Description:

The Project proposes to develop the 23.54-acre site with 249 single-family residential units, resulting in

10.57 du/ac. Additionally, the proposed Project would include landscaping, parking, private roadways, recreation facilities, and utility and stormwater improvements.

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

North: East Esplanade Avenue followed by residential uses.

East: South Hewitt Street followed by vacant and undeveloped subdivision.

South: East Commonwealth Avenue followed by vacant and undeveloped land.

West: Commercial uses, single-family residence, and vacant and undeveloped land.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:

Not Applicable.

Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of the CEQA process and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts (PRC Section 21084.2). AB 52 requires that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review evaluate, just as they do for other historical and archeological resources, a project’s potential impact to a tribal cultural resource. In addition, AB 52 requires that lead agencies, upon request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project. AB 52 does The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
42 not apply to an Exemption or Addendum, such as this Community Plan CEQA Streamlining Checklist (State CEQA Guidelines Section15183). As such, AB 52 noticing is not required for this Project.

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

Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire

4.3. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed Project WOULD NOT result in: 1) a peculiar impact that was not identified as a significant impact under the prior EIR; 2) a significant impact that was not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR; 3) a potentially significant offsite impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the prior EIR; or 4) a more severe impact due to substantial new information that was not known at the time the prior EIR. NO FURTHER ACTION is required and a Notice of Determination (Section 15094) will be filed indicating that the Project IS ELIGIBLE for an EXEMPTION under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

I find that the proposed Project would result in: 1) a peculiar impact that was not identified as a significant impact under the prior EIR; 2) a significant impact that was not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR; 3) a potentially significant offsite impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the prior EIR; or 4) a more severe impact due to substantial new information that was not known at the time the prior EIR. I find that FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW is necessary to analyze those effects that are subject to CEQA, and therefore, this Project is NOT ELIGIBLE for an EXEMPTION under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Signature Date
Name and Title Lead Agency
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
43 4.4. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This Community Plan CEQA Streamlining Checklist provides an analysis of potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project. Following the format of CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist, environmental effects are evaluated to determine if the Project would result in a potentially significant impact triggering additional review under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. • Items checked “Peculiar Impact that is not Substantially Mitigated” indicates that the Project could result in a peculiar impact, including a physical change that belongs exclusively or especially to the Project or that is a distinctive characteristic of the Project or the Project site and that peculiar impact is not substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(1)(f)) • Items checked “Impact not Analyzed as Significant Effect in GPU EIR/SEIR” indicates that the Project could result in a significant effect that was not analyzed as significant in the GPU EIR. Such a Project impact is not significant if it can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(2),(c),(f)) • Items checked “Potentially Significant Offsite or Cumulative Impact Not Discussed in GPU EIR/SEIR” indicates the Project could result in a significant offsite or cumulative impact that was not discussed in the GPU EIR/SEIR. Such an offsite or cumulative Project impact is not significant if it can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(3),(c),(f))
• Items checked “Adverse Impact More Severe Based on Substantial New Information” indicates that there is new information that leads to a determination that the Project impact is more severe than discussed in the GPU EIR/SEIR. Such an impact is not more severe if it can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(4)(c)(f)).
• Items checked “No New Impact” indicates that potential impacts from the Project have been adequately analyzed in the GPU EIR/SEIR.

A project does not qualify for a Community Plan Exemption if it is determined that it would result in one or more of the following: 1) a peculiar impact that was not identified as a significant impact under the GPU EIR, 2) a significant impact was not analyzed as significant in the GPU EIR, 3) a potentially significant offsite impact or cumulative impact not discussed in the GPU EIR, or 4) a more severe impact due to substantial new information that was not known at the time the GPU EIR was certified. However, if a project having any of the foregoing impacts can be substantially mitigated through the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, then an additional EIR does not need to be prepared based solely on that impact. Uniformly applied development policies or standards that are applicable to the proposed Project are included within this analysis.

A summary of the City’s analysis of each potential environmental impact related to the proposed Project is provided in the checklist below for each CEQA environmental topic area.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
44 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist. The section briefly summarizes the conclusions of the GPU EIR, provides an evaluation of the proposed Project and then discusses whether or not the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR, or if further analysis is required pursuant to CEQA. Mitigation measures referenced herein are from the GPU EIR.

5.1. AESTHETICS
Project
Peculiar
Impact that
is not
Substantiall
y Mitigated
by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 21099 would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (public views are those
that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the Project
is in an urbanized area, would the
Project conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic
quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed impacts related to aesthetics on pages 5.1-8 through 5.1-20. The GPU EIR describes that scenic resources in the City include the Lakeview Mountains to the west, the San Jacinto Mountain foothills to the northeast, and the San Timoteo badlands to the northwest. The GPU EIR determined implementation The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
45 of the GPU would result in new development and intensification of existing urban uses throughout the City that may detract from the existing scenic vistas. However, the GPU Land Use Map would maintain existing designated Open Space areas in the San Jacinto Mountain foothills to the northeast and Lakeview Mountains to the west. Further, SJDC Article 2, Zones, Allowable Land Uses, and Zone‐Specific Standards, would regulate maximum building height, building setbacks, building type and intensity, and other development characteristics in place in each zoning district to protect scenic vistas within the City. SJDC Chapter 17.630, Site Plan and Design Review, provides for project‐specific design review of future development proposals within City limits, which would ensure that development pursuant to the GPU is attractive and cohesive without diminishing the quality of the natural beauty of the general vicinity. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that implementation of the GPU would have less than significant impacts related to scenic vistas.

The GPU EIR details that there are no officially designated State Scenic Highways that traverse San Jacinto.

The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is State Route 243, located approximately 9 miles east of the City and the nearest Eligible State Route Scenic Highway is State Route 74, located approximately 1.8 miles south of the City. Within the City, a segment of Ramona Expressway, Lake Park Drive, and a segment of Soboba Road/Gilman Springs Road have been designated by Riverside County as County eligible scenic highways. The GPU EIR describes that future development pursuant to the GPU could occur adjacent to County eligible scenic highways. However, future development would be subject to conformance with applicable provisions of the SJMC and SJDC. Further, future development projects would be reviewed for compliance under CEQA and the City’s CEQA guidelines and, if necessary, mitigation would be recommended to reduce potential impacts to reduce potentially impacts to scenic resources associated with new development. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined implementation of the GPU would not significantly impact scenic resources within a State scenic highway and impacts would be less than significant.

The GPU EIR describes that construction activities for future development accommodated through implementation of the GPU could temporarily degrade the visual character and quality of the respective development site and/or its immediate surrounding. However, all construction activities related to the GPU would be temporary in nature and all construction equipment would ultimately be removed from individual project sites following completion of construction activities. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that changes to local visual character and quality associated with construction of future development would be temporary, and impacts would be less than significant. The GPU EIR also determined that the long term visual character of the City would change with implementation of the GPU; however, implementation of policies and actions contained in the GPU and compliance with the SJDC would ensure that new development in the City would be designed to enhance the visual quality of the area and be visually compatible with existing development and open space resources. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined implementation of the GPU would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views or conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts would be less than significant.

The GPU EIR also details that future development accommodated through implementation of the GPU could introduce new sources of light or glare with the potential to adversely affect day or nighttime views.

However, all lighting installed in future development projects would be subject to conformance with applicable SJDC requirements and guided by GPU Land Use Element Action LU-3c, which would ensure sensitive receptors are protected from the intrusion of development activities that may cause unwanted nuisances through the development review process. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined implementation of the GPU would not result in adverse light and glare impacts and impacts would be less than significant.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
46 Project-Specific Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.1-8 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

Scenic vistas consist of expansive, panoramic views of important, unique, or highly valued visual features that are seen from public viewing areas. This definition combines visual quality with information about view exposure to describe the level of interest or concern that viewers may have for the quality of a particular view or visual setting. The GPU EIR identifies that scenic resources in the City of San Jacinto include the Lakeview Mountains to the west, the San Jacinto Mountain foothills to the northeast, and the San Timoteo badlands to the northwest.

The Project site is currently undeveloped and regularly disced; thus, existing vegetation is limited to weeds and low grasses. Three sides of the site are surrounded by tree lined roadways and one and two-story urban development, consisting of residential and commercial uses. Distant views of the Lakeview Mountains and San Jacinto Mountains are available along roadway corridors from public vantage points on South Hewitt Street, East Esplanade Road, and East Commonwealth Avenue. The Project proposes to develop the site with a new residential community consisting of 249 detached, two-story single-family residences on the

23.54-acre site, resulting in a density of 10.57 du/ac. The residences would have a maximum height of 29 feet, measured from finish grade to top of highest roof ridges.

While development of the site would limit views of the foreground available across the vacant site shown in Figure 2-4, Site Photos, the new residential units would be set back from the adjacent streets and would not encroach into the existing public long-distance views that are available from public roadways. The proposed Project would be set back approximately 21 feet from Commonwealth Avenue, approximately 24 feet from Esplanade Avenue, and approximately 26 feet from South Hewitt Street. Thus, the Project would not encroach upon public views of the mountains along the roadways surrounding the site. Additionally, the proposed Project would be consistent with the views immediately surrounding the site which consist of two story residential buildings and commercial uses. In addition, the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s development standards for the land use and zoning designation (as detailed under Threshold 5.1c) of the Project site. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact on scenic vistas (distant mountain views).

The Project impacts related to scenic vistas are consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would not result in any new or increased impacts related to scenic vistas. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.1-11 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

The proposed Project would not damage any scenic resources or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The Project site is currently undeveloped, vacant, and surrounded by commercial uses and residential neighborhoods. The GPU EIR details that there are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in the City of San Jacinto. The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is State Route 243, located approximately 9 miles east of the Project site (Caltrans, 2018). The nearest Eligible State Route Scenic Highway is State Route 74, located approximately 1.5 miles south of the Project site (Caltrans, 2018).

The Project site is not visible from either State Route 243 or State Route 74; therefore, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
47 Scenic Highway. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR, and the Project would result in no new impact.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.1-15 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would occur in the following stages: (1) site preparation and grading; (2) building construction; (3) paving; and (4) architectural coatings. Consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, construction-related visual impacts would be short-term and temporary, lasting only as long as the 18-month construction period, and would be similar to surrounding areas that are also under construction. Therefore, changes to local visual character and quality associated with construction of the proposed Project would be temporary, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
The Project is located in an urbanized area that has been mostly built-out. As described previously in Section 2, Project Setting, the Project site has an existing land use designation of Mixed Use and a zoning designation of MU. Table AES-1 below compares the Project’s consistency with SJDC standards for residential development within the MU zone.

Table AES-1: Consistency with SJDC Development Standards Development Feature Development Standard Project Consistency Residential Density 10.1-36.0 du/ac Consistent. 10.57 du/ac Setbacks (Perimeter) Abutting Residential: 15 feet
Abutting Non-Residential: 10 feet
Abutting Street: 15 feet
Consistent.

Abutting Non-Residential (west Project
boundary): 10 feet
Abutting Commonwealth Avenue: 21 feet
Abutting Esplanade Avenue: 24 feet
Abutting South Hewitt Street: 26 feet
Open Space (per dwelling
unit)
Common: 250 SF
Private: 100 SF
Consistent.

Alley Cluster – Common: 500 SF
Alley Cluster – Private: 672 SF
Small Lot Detached – Common: 680 SF
Small Lot Detached – Private: 914 SF
Structure Height Within 10 feet of a perimeter
property line: 35 feet
Between 10 and 20 feet of a
perimeter property line: 40 feet.

Between 20 and 30 feet of a
perimeter property line: 45 feet
Beyond 30 feet of a perimeter
property line: 60 feet
Consistent. The proposed residential
structures would have a maximum height of
29 feet.

Fences and Walls 6-8 feet high Consistent. All fences and walls proposed as part of the Project would have a
maximum height of 6 feet.

Parking 2 enclosed spaces Consistent. The Project would provide two enclosed spaces for each residential unit.

Source: San Jacinto Development Code, Section 17.227.030, Table 2-8 The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
48 As shown in Table AES-1, the Project would be consistent with the SJDC development standards for the MU zone and would not conflict with an applicable zoning regulation related to scenic quality. In addition, consistent with GPU Policy LU-5.8, the Project would install approximately 94,306 SF of drought tolerant landscaping including 1-gallon, 5-gallon, and 15-gallon trees; and a variety of shrubs and groundcovers.

Trees would be installed adjacent to the perimeter masonry walls in the landscaped planter adjacent to the sidewalk and throughout the park and open spaces. Additionally, the Project is consistent with applicable GPU policies and actions such as Policy LU-2.2 which encourages development to occur in infill locations to reduce sprawl and create connectivity, and Policy LU-3.1 which encourages considering a projects compatibility with surrounding existing uses. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality would be less than significant.

The Project would not conflict with an applicable zoning regulation related to scenic quality. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.1-19 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

As described above, the Project site is currently undeveloped and vacant. However, the Project site is surrounded by existing sources of nighttime lighting including illumination from vehicle headlights along Commonwealth Avenue, Esplanade Avenue, and South Hewitt Street, security lighting from adjacent uses, and from interior illumination from nearby residential homes passing through windows. Sensitive receptors relative to lighting and glare include residents, motorists, and pedestrians.

The Project would introduce new sources of light from new building lighting, exterior lighting, interior lights shining through building windows, and headlights from nighttime vehicular trips generated from the Project.

However, consistent with SJDC Section 17.300.080, Outdoor Light and Glare, all Project lighting would be directed downward and shielded so as not to spill over onto neighboring properties. Compliance with the SJDC would be implemented through the construction permitting and plan check process. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, with compliance with the SJDC lighting provisions, impacts related to increased sources of light would be less than significant.

Glare can emanate from many different sources, some of which include direct sunlight, sunlight reflecting from cars or buildings, and bright outdoor or indoor lighting. Glare in the Project vicinity is generated by building and vehicle windows reflecting light. However, there are no substantial buildings or structures near the Project site that presently generate substantial glare since most of the buildings are one or two-story structures that are constructed of non-reflective materials and are not surfaced with a substantial number of windows adjacent to one another that would create a large reflective area.

The proposed building materials do not consist of highly reflective materials Additionally, lights installed at the site would be shielded consistent with SJDC requirements, and the proposed landscaping and walls along Project boundaries would screen sources of light and reduce the potential for glare. The proposed Project would create limited new sources of light or glare from security and site lighting but would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area given the similarity of the existing lighting in the surrounding urbanized environment. With implementation of the regulatory requirements per SJDC Section 17.300.080, included as DP/S AES-1, impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Aesthetics, the following findings can be made:

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
49 1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU EIR would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) DP/S AES-1: Glare and Outdoor Lighting Standards. The Project is required to comply with San Jacinto Development Code Section 17.300.080 which requires all exterior lighting to be shielded or modified and located so as to eliminate spillover illumination or glare beyond the property line or upward into the sky.

GPU Goals, Policies & Actions
Applicable GPU policies and actions related to aesthetics include the following:

Policy LU-2.2: Infill Development. Encourage new development to occur in infill locations in a balanced and efficient pattern that reduces sprawl, preserves open space, and creates convenient connections to other land uses and activity centers.

Policy LU-3.1 Surrounding Uses. Consider as part of the development review process the compatibility of new development with surrounding uses and the ability of new development to enhance the character of the surrounding area.

Action LU-3b: Through the development review process, evaluate development proposals for land use and transportation network compatibility with existing surrounding or abutting development or neighborhoods.

Action LU-3c: Analyze land use compatibility through the development review process to require adequate buffers and/or architectural enhancements that protect sensitive receptors from intrusion of development activities that may cause unwanted nuisances and health risks.

Action LU-3e: During both redevelopment and the development of new projects, encourage the provision and maintenance of setbacks and buffers, such as roadways, topographic features, and open space, to prevent incompatibilities between agricultural and non-agricultural land uses.

Policy LU-5.2: Standards and Guidelines. Develop and enforce development standards and objective design guidelines that provide clear direction for achieving quality community design in new development and redevelopment projects.

Policy LU-5.7: Landscaping. Use landscaping for screening, solar control, parking lot shade, and other beautification purposes throughout the City.

Policy LU-5.8: Streetscapes. Promote drought tolerant landscaping, tree planting, and tree preservation along City streets as a means of improving aesthetics, making neighborhoods more pedestrian-friendly, and providing environmental and economic benefits.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None applicable to aesthetics.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
50 5.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Project
Peculiar
Impact
that is not
Substantia
lly
Mitigated
by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulativ
e Impact
not
Discussed
in the
prior EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantia
l New
Informatio
n
No New
Impact
In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Dept.
of Conservation as an optional model to
use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. In determining whether
impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory
of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest
Legacy Assessment Project; and forest
carbon measurement methodology
provided in Forest Protocols adopted by
the California Air Resources Board.

Would the Project:
a) 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 nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
51 c) 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))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
e) 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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed impacts to agricultural and forestry resources on pages 5.2-7 through 5.2-12. The GPU EIR determined implementation of the GPU would not lead to the direct conversion of designated Important Farmland, but rather, would continue the existing land use pattern in San Jacinto that calls for ongoing infill development and urbanization within the City. However, since the GPU does not require the preservation of designated farmland, implementation of the GPU could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that although the GPU includes policies and actions to support continued agricultural use within the City, the potential for the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance as identified by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) to non-agricultural use would be a significant unavoidable impact.

Additionally, the GPU EIR determined the potential for future development to conflict with a preserved or Williamson Act contract would be a significant unavoidable impact. There are no forest lands within the City, nor are there suitable environmental conditions for forest land to be developed; therefore, implementation of the GPU would not result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Project-Specific Impacts
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.2-7 and was found to have a significant and unavoidable impact.

The State of California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program is charged with producing maps for analyzing impacts on the state’s agricultural resources. California’s agricultural lands are rated based on soil quality and irrigation status. For CEQA purposes, the following categories qualify as “agricultural land”: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land. Per Section 21060.1 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing Land are not considered Farmland.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
52 The State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and Figure 5.2-1, Important Farmlands Map, of the GPU EIR indicate that there is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the Project site (California Department of Conservation 2022; City of San Jacinto, July 2022).

The Project site is designated as “Farmland of Local Importance” (California Department of Conservation, 2022). However, the site is not actively being used for agriculture and the site is designated by the General Plan for mixed use development and is surrounded by roadways and urban development. Therefore, given that the Project site is not being used for agricultural use, and that no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance has been identified within the Project site, implementation of the proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. Therefore, the Project would result in no impacts on conversion of important farmland to non-agricultural use. As such, the proposed Project would result in fewer impacts than those identified by the GPU EIR, and the Project would not result in any new or increased impacts. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.2-9 and was found to have a significant and unavoidable impact.

As identified previously, the Project site has a land use designation of Mixed Use and a zoning designation of MU. Additionally, as shown in Figure 5.2-2, Agriculture Preserve Lands, of the GPU EIR, the Project site is not agriculturally preserved or subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Project would not result in a conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. As such, the proposed Project would result in fewer impacts than those identified by the GPU EIR, and the Project would not result in any new or increased impacts.
c) 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))? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.2-10 and was found to have no impact because no portion of the City is designated or zoned as forest land or timberland.

The Project site consists of undeveloped land that is vacant with some vegetation consisting of weeds and low grasses. No forest land exists on or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site has a zoning designation of MU and is not zoned for forest land or timberland uses. Therefore, the Project would result in no new or increased impacts related to conflicts with existing forest land or timberland zoning. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.2-10 and was found to have no impact because no portion of the City is designated or zoned as forest land or timberland.

The Project site consists of undeveloped land that is vacant with some vegetation consisting of weeds and low grasses. No forest land exists on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to conversion of forest land to non-forest use. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new impact. e) 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? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.2-10 and was found to have a significant and unavoidable impact.

As identified above, the Projects site is not identified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance by the California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
53 Map. The Project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes. However, the Project site is not currently or actively being used for agricultural purposes, is not adjacent to agricultural uses, and has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use and a zoning designation of MU. The site does not contain forest land and is not designated or zoned for forest land. Additionally, the proposed Project would not convert farmland to a nonagricultural use or convert forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and the Project would not 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. Therefore, the Project would result in no new or increased impacts related to conversion of agricultural or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest use.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Agricultural/Forestry Resources, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU EIR would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None applicable to this Project.

GPU Goals, Policies & Actions
None applicable to this Project.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None applicable to this Project.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
54 5.3. AIR QUALITY
Project
Peculiar
Impact that
is not
Substantially
Mitigated
by Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable
air quality management district or air
pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following
determinations. Would the Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) affecting a substantial
number of people?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed impacts related to air quality on pages 5.3-27 through 5.3-43. The GPU EIR determined construction of the development anticipated by the GPU has the potential to temporarily emit criteria air pollutant emissions through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, and through vehicle trips generated by workers and haul trucks. In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from demolition and various soil-handling activities. Mobile source emissions, primarily nitric oxide (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5), would result from the use of diesel-powered on- and off-road vehicles and equipment. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day-to-day, depending on the level of activity and the specific type of construction activity. Construction air emission modeling included as part of the GPU EIR found that construction-related daily emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The GPU EIR determined operation of the future development accommodated by the GPU would generate criteria air pollutant emissions from project-generated vehicle trips traveling within the City, energy sources such as natural gas combustion, and area sources such as landscaping equipment and consumer products usage.

Operational air emission modeling included as part of the GPU EIR found that potential operational emissions The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
55 from buildout of the GPU would also exceed regulatory thresholds (for VOC, NOx, carbon monoxide [CO], PM10, and PM2.5). The GPU incorporated feasible mitigation measures into the policies and actions included within the GPU. However, there are no feasible criteria air pollutant reduction measures beyond those identified within the policies and actions identified, that would reduce impacts. Therefore, the GPU determined that while implementation of these policies and actions would reduce criteria pollutant emissions, the extent to which the impacts would be generated by future development and infrastructure projects have to be determined on a project-by-project basis, as necessary. Therefore, impacts are significant and unavoidable.

The GPU EIR determined future construction activities under the GPU has the potential to temporarily emit criteria air pollutants through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, through vehicle trips generated by workers and haul trucks, and through fugitive dust emission resulting from demolition and various soilhandling activities. The GPU EIR modeled air emissions that could result from buildout of the GPU and found that construction-related daily emissions would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOCs, resulting in a potentially significant impact. The GPU EIR determined operation of future development accommodated by the GPU would generate criteria air pollutant emissions from project-generated vehicle trips traveling within the City, energy sources such as natural gas combustion, and area sources such as landscaping equipment and consumer products usage. The GPU EIR determined operational emissions for future development accommodated by the GPU would exceed regulatory thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5, resulting in a potentially significant impact.

The GPU includes policies and actions that would potentially reduce emissions. Additionally, future development under the GPU would be required to comply with SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), State Implementation Plan (SIP), California Air Resources Board (CARB), SCAQMD regulations, and Title 24 energy efficiency standards. However, while implementation of these regulations, policies and actions would reduce criteria pollutant emissions, the extent to which the impacts would need to be determined on a project-by-project basis, as necessary. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined impacts related to increases of criteria air pollutants would be significant and unavoidable.

The GPU EIR determined future development under the GPU would be required to comply with AQMP, SIP, CARB, SCAQMD regulations, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and the proposed GPU policies and actions which would mitigate and reduce emissions related to local air quality emissions, toxic air contaminant emissions, and health impacts. However, the exact location, type, nature, and size of future projects that may expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations cannot be calculated at this time, as the details of potential future projects are not currently known. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined impacts related to localized operational impacts, construction and operational health and toxic air impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The GPU EIR determined that through compliance with SCAQMD rules, such as Rule 1113 (architectural coating) and Rule 402 (Nuisance), potential impacts related to odors would be less than significant.

Additionally, the policies included as part of the GPU would reduce mobile and stationary source emissions and odors associated with diesel fuel by focusing on land use patterns that improve air quality, reduce air pollution from stationary sources, and encourage/enable increased transit behavior. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined implementation of the GPU would not create operational-related objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people within the City and impacts would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
This section was prepared using the following reports:
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum for the proposed Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project, San Jacinto, California. LSA. August 2, 2024. Appendix A.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
56 • Supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Memorandum for the Required Storm Drain Improvements for the “Esplanade Collection” Project, San Jacinto. EPD Solutions, Inc. October 14, 2024.

Appendix B.

As included in Appendix A, an Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum was prepared in August 2024 for the proposed Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project, San Jacinto, California. However, on September 19, 2024, the Project was required to add installation of 1,300 linear feet of 24-inch diameter storm drain line in Esplanade Avenue, which was not previously considered in LSA’s Memorandum. Thus, an additional analysis was prepared to model the AQ and GHG emissions generated from installation of the storm drain line and calculate the total Project construction emissions to determine if any thresholds would be exceeded, which is included in Appendix B.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.3-27 through 5.3-32 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin and is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for preparing the AQMP, which addresses federal and state Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the Basin. The GPU EIR used the 2016 AQMP which has since been updated. The current AQMP is the 2022 AQMP, adopted in December 2022. Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). A project is considered consistent with the AQMP if is consistent with the planned density or growth of an area and if it would not result in or cause California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) violations. In addition, the SCAQMD considers a project consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation.

The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is in a non-attainment status for federal ozone standards, federal carbon monoxide standards, and state and federal particulate matter standards. Any development in the SCAB, including the proposed Project, could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations. Should construction or operation of the proposed Project exceed these thresholds a significant impact could occur; however, if estimated emissions are less than the thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant.

As described previously, the Project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use and a zoning designation of MU, which allows residential densities between 10 and 36 dwelling units per gross acre. The Project would develop the 23.54-acre site with 249 residential units, resulting in a density of 10.57 du/ac.

As described in the GPU EIR (page 5.3-27), projects that are consistent with the General Plan are consistent with the AQMP. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would not exceed the growth assumptions for the Project site. As a result, the proposed Project would be consistent with Consistency Criterion No. 1.

As discussed below, the emissions generated by the construction and operation of the proposed Project would not exceed thresholds, and the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause a new violation. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with Consistency Criterion No. 2. Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to implementation of an AQMP, and no new impacts related to conflict with implementation of an AQMP would occur.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard)? The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
57 No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.3-32 through 5.3-38 and was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact.

The SCAB is in non-attainment status for federal ozone standards, and state and federal particulate matter standards. The SCAB is designated as a maintenance area for federal PM10 standards. Any development in the SCAB, including the proposed Project could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations.

Evaluation of the cumulative air quality impacts of the proposed Project has been completed pursuant to SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology. SCAQMD states that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (VOCs, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutant(s) for which the Project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table AQ-1.

Table AQ-1: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds
Air Pollutant
Maximum Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Construction Operation
VOCs 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size; SOx = sulfur oxides; VOCs = volatile organic compound
Source: Table B, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum (Appendix A)
Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the following: (1) site preparation, (2) grading and trenching, (3) building construction, (4) architectural coating, and (5) paving. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring.

It is mandatory for all construction projects to comply with several SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the Project site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a minimum freeboard height of 12-inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas.

Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling. In addition, implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113 which governs the VOC content in architectural coating, paint, thinners, and solvents was accounted for in construction emissions modeling. As shown in Table AQ-2, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) results indicate that construction emissions generated by the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, construction activities would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no new impact related to construction emissions would occur.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
58 Table AQ-2: Regional Project Construction Emission Estimates Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
VOCs NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 1.2 39.9 29.7 <0.1 9.0 5.0
Grading/Trenching 1.6 65.1 51.3 0.1 7.1 3.3
Building Construction 1.1 20.8 23.1 <0.1 2.6 1.1
Architectural Coating 20.5 1.2 2.2 <0.1 0.4 0.1
Paving 0.8 13.4 11.4 <0.1 0.8 0.6
Peak Daily Emissions 20.5 56.6 38.7 0.1 9.0 5.0
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Table D, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum (Appendix A); Table 3, Subsequent Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Memorandum for the Required Storm Drain Improvements for the “Esplanade Collection” Project, San Jacinto (Appendix B).

Operation
Operation of the proposed residences would result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 from the following primary sources: area sources, energy sources, and mobile sources. Area-source emissions include architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping. Mobile-source emissions are from vehicle trips associated with operation of the Project. The proposed residences would be all-electric; therefore, the proposed residences would not generate energy source emissions. Operational vehicular emissions would generate a majority of the emissions from implementation of the proposed Project.

Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project were modeled using CalEEMod Version 2022.1 land use emission model and compared to the SCAQMD operational emissions thresholds. Emissions associated with the operation of the proposed Project are presented in Table AQ-3. As shown, operational emissions would be below SCAQMD’s thresholds. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to operational air quality emissions. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new impact or in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.

Table AQ-3: Regional Project Operational Emissions
Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
VOCs NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 9.3 8.3 71.1 0.2 15.1 3.9
Area 13.0 <0.1 17.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Operational
Emissions 22.3 8.3 88.1 0.2 15.1 3.9
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Table E, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum (Appendix A) c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.3-38 through 5.3-41 and was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
59 The SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2008) recommends the evaluation of localized NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Such an evaluation is referred to as a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis. According to the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to the LSTs” (SCAQMD 2008). SCAQMD has developed LSTs that represent the maximum emissions from a Project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 pollutants for each of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in the Basin. The Project is located within SRA 28, Hemet/San Jacinto Valley.

Sensitive receptors can include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities. The nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine localized construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 (since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time). The nearest sensitive receptors where such a receptor could reside for 24 hours or longer are existing residences approximately 40 feet west from the south end of the Project site, along East Commonwealth Avenue. Therefore, the distance for sensitive receptors in the LST assessment was set at 25 meters, the shortest distance in the SCAQMD LST emission lookup tables. SCAQMD methodology states that in cases where receptors may be closer than 82 feet (25 meters), any distance within the 82-foot (25-meter) buffer zone can be used. As such, the minimum distance of 25 meters was used.

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project may expose nearby residential sensitive receptors to airborne particulates as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following SCAQMD’s standard construction practices Rule 402, which requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance offsite. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. As shown in Table AQ-4, Project construction-source emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LSTs and impacts would be less than significant.

Table AQ-4: Project Localized Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Localized Emissions
(lbs/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
On Site Project Emissions 57.1 46 8.8 5.0
SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold 303.0 1,533.0 10.0 6.0 Emissions Exceed Thresholds? No No No No
Source: Table H, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum (Appendix A); Table 4, Subsequent Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Memorandum for the Required Storm Drain Improvements for the “Esplanade Collection” Project, San Jacinto (Appendix B).

Operation
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs apply to stationary mobile sources. Projects that involve mobile sources that spend long periods queuing and idling at a site, such as transfer facilities or warehousing The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
60 and distribution buildings, have the potential to exceed the operational localized significance thresholds. The proposed Project would operate 249 new single-family residences, which do not involve vehicles idling or queueing for long periods. Therefore, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, as detailed in Table AQ-5, impacts related to operational localized significance thresholds would be less than significant (Appendix A). The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations and no new impact would occur.

Table AQ-5: Project Localized Operational Emissions
Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Localized Emissions
(lbs/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
On Site Project Emissions 0.4 20.6 0.8 0.2
SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold 371.0 1,965.0 4.0 2.0 Emissions Exceed Thresholds? No No No No
Source: Table H, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum (Appendix A) As such, the proposed Project would result in fewer impacts than those identified by the GPU EIR, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact.

Long-Term Microscale (CO Hot Spot) Analysis
Vehicular trips associated with the proposed Project would contribute to congestion at intersections and along roadway segments in the Project vicinity. Localized air quality impacts would occur when emissions from vehicular traffic increase as a result of the proposed Project. The primary mobile-source pollutant of local concern is CO, a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, of traffic flow conditions. CO transport is extremely limited; under normal meteorological conditions, CO disperses rapidly with distance from the source. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels, affecting local sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, and hospital patients). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes.

In areas with high ambient background CO concentrations, modeling is recommended to determine a project’s effect on local CO levels.

An assessment of Project-related impacts on localized ambient air quality requires that future ambient air quality levels be projected. Existing CO concentrations in the immediate Project vicinity are not available.

Ambient CO levels monitored at the Lake Elsinore Monitoring Station located at 506 West Flint Street (the closest station to the Project site monitoring CO) showed a highest recorded 1-hour concentration of 1.3 ppm (the State standard is 20 ppm) and a highest 8-hour concentration of 0.8 ppm (the State standard is 9 ppm) from 2021 to 2023 (Appendix A). The highest CO concentrations would normally occur during peak traffic hours; hence, CO impacts calculated under peak traffic conditions represent a worst-case analysis.

As described in Section 5.17, Transportation, and shown in Table T-1, the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 2,348 average daily trips, with 174 trips occurring in the AM peak hour trips and 234 trips occurring in the PM peak hours. Given the extremely low level of CO concentrations in the Project area, and limited number of vehicle trips during the peak hours, Project-related vehicles would not contribute significantly to result in the CO concentrations exceeding the State or federal CO standards. As such, impacts related to CO would be less than significant, which would not exceed the impacts identified by the GPU EIR.

Health Risk Assessment
A Health Risk Assessment (HRA), included as Attachment C of Appendix A, was prepared to evaluate the potential health impacts to sensitive receptors from the construction of the proposed Project. The HRA focuses The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
61 on the emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) from the operation of the heavy-duty diesel vehicles and off-road construction equipment that would be utilized for the construction of the proposed Project. DPM has been identified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as a carcinogenic substance responsible for nearly 70 percent of the airborne cancer risk in California. The estimated health risk impacts were compared to the health risk significance thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD for use in CEQA assessments. The following limits for maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and noncancer acute and chronic Hazard Index (HI) from Project emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) are considered appropriate for use in determining the health risk for projects in the SCAB:
• MICR: MICR is the estimated probability of a maximally exposed individual (MEI) contracting cancer as a result of exposure to TACs over a period of 30 years for residential locations and over a period of 25 years for workers. The cumulative increase in MICR that is the sum of the calculated MICR values for all TACs would be considered significant if it would result in an increased MICR greater than 10 in 1 million at any receptor location.
• Chronic HI: Chronic HI is the ratio of the estimated long-term level of exposure to a TAC for a potential MEI to its chronic reference exposure level. The project would be considered significant if the cumulative increase in total chronic HI for any target organ system would exceed 1.0 at any receptor location.
• Acute HI: Acute HI is the ratio of the estimated maximum 1-hour concentration of a TAC for a potential MEI to its acute reference exposure level. The Project would be considered significant if the cumulative increase in total acute HI for any target organ system would exceed 1.0 at any receptor location.

Sensitive receptors are defined as residential uses, schools, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical centers. Individuals particularly vulnerable to diesel particulate matter are children, whose lung tissue is still developing, and the elderly, who may have serious health problems that can be aggravated by exposure to diesel particulate matter. The Project site is surrounded primarily by residential and commercial uses. The nearest residential receptors include the single-family residence located approximately 40 feet west from the south end of the Project site, along East Commonwealth Avenue. The nearest worker receptor to the Project site is located immediately west of the Project site, within 10 feet. The nearest school receptor to the Project site is located approximately 1,200 feet north of the Project site, across El Monte Street.

Tables AQ-6 presents a summary of the cancer risks and chronic non-cancer hazards resulting from the proposed Project's construction DPM emissions along with the SCAQMD health risk significance thresholds. As shown, the maximum cancer risk for the residential MEI would be 15.14 in one million, which would exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The worker MEI risk would be at 0.33 in one million and the school MEI would be 0.16 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold.

The total chronic HI would be 0.011 for the residential MEI, 0.014 for the worker MEI, and less than 0.001 for the school MEI, which is below the threshold of 1.0. In addition, the total acute HI would be nominal (0.000), which would also not exceed the threshold of 1.0.

Table AQ-6: Project Construction Health Risk
Location
Carcinogenic Inhalation
Health Risk in One
Million
Chronic Inhalation
Hazard Index
Acute Inhalation
Hazard Index
Residential Receptor Risk 15.14 0.011 0.000
Worker Receptor Risk 0.33 0.014 0.000
School Receptor 0.16 <0.001 0.000
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 10.0 in one million 1.0 1.0 Significant? Yes No No
Source: Table F, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum (Appendix A) However, consistent with the GPU, the proposed Project would incorporate GPU Action RM-4n which requires the use of Tier 4 construction equipment for all off-road diesel equipment greater and 50 horsepower. Table The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
62 AQ-7 presents a summary of the Project construction health risk with implementation of Tier 4 construction equipment. As shown in Table AQ-7, with implementation of GPU Action RM-4n, the cancer risk at the residential MEI would be 1.63 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk of 10 in one million. Therefore, with implementation of GPU Action RM-4n, construction of the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds and would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant, and no new impact would occur.

Tabel AQ-7: Health Risks from Project Construction with Tier 4 Equipment Location
Carcinogenic Inhalation
Health Risk in One
Million
Chronic Inhalation
Hazard Index
Acute Inhalation
Hazard Index
Residential Receptor Risk 1.63 0.003 0.000
Worker Receptor Risk 0.04 0.002 0.000
School Receptor 0.02 <0.001 0.000
SCAQMD Significance Threshold 10.0 in one million 1.0 1.0 Significant? No No No
Source: Table G, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum (Appendix A) Once operational, as identified in Tables AQ-3 and AQ-5 above, Project operational emissions of criteria pollutants would be below SCAQMD significance thresholds; thus, they are not likely to have a significant impact on sensitive receptors. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in new sources of TACs.

Overall, with implementation of GPU Action RM-4n, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of TACs. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new impact. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.3-41 and 5.3-42 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

The proposed Project would develop the site with residential uses that do not involve the types of uses that would emit objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. In addition, odors generated by residential land uses are required to be in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402, which would prevent nuisance odors.

During construction, emissions from construction equipment, architectural coatings, and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, intermittent in nature, and would not affect a substantial number of people. The noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. Also, the short-term construction-related odors would cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor-producing materials. Therefore, development pursuant to the proposed Project would not result in any substantial impacts related to odor. The Project would result in no new or increased impacts related to other emissions affecting a substantial number of people.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Air Quality, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
63 3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU EIR would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant with implementation of SCAQMD rules and GPU actions.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations. Specific rules applicable to the proposed Project include the following:

DP/S AQ-1: Rule 402 – Nuisance. A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.

DP/S AQ-2: Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust. SCAQMD Rule 403 governs emissions of fugitive dust during and after construction. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard Best Management Practices, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph, and establishing a permanent ground cover on finished sites.

Rule 403 requires project applicants to control fugitive dust using the best available control measures such that dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, Rule 403 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating an offsite nuisance. Applicable Rule 403 dust suppression (and PM10 generation) techniques to reduce impacts on nearby sensitive receptors may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). • Water active sites at least three times daily. Locations where grading is to occur shall be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving.
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 0.6 meters (2 feet) of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114. • Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph) or less. • Suspend all grading activities when wind speeds (including instantaneous wind gusts) exceed 25 mph.
• Provide bumper strips or similar best management practices where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. • Replant disturbed areas as soon as practical.
• Sweep onsite streets (and offsite streets if silt is carried to adjacent public thoroughfares) to reduce the amount of particulate matter on public streets. All sweepers shall be compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1186.1, Less Polluting Sweepers.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
64 DP/S AQ-3: Rule 481 – Spray Coating. This rule applies to all spray painting and spray coating operations and equipment and states that a person shall not use or operate any spray painting or spray coating equipment unless one of the following conditions is met:
• The spray coating equipment is operated inside a control enclosure, which is approved by the Executive Officer. Any control enclosure for which an application for permit for new construction, alteration, or change of ownership or location is submitted after the date of adoption of this rule shall be exhausted only through filters at a design face velocity not less than 100 feet per minute nor greater than 300 feet per minute, or through a water wash system designed to be equally effective for the purpose of air pollution control.
• Coatings are applied with high-volume low-pressure, electrostatic and/or airless spray equipment. • An alternative method of coating application or control is used which has effectiveness equal to or greater than the equipment specified in the rule.

DP/S AQ-4: Rule 1108 - Volatile Organic Compounds. This rule governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of asphalt and limits the volatile organic compound (VOC) content in asphalt used in the Basin. This rule also regulates the VOC content of asphalt used during construction. Therefore, all asphalt used during construction of the Project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1108.

DP/S AQ-5: Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings. No person shall apply or solicit the application of any architectural coating within the SCAQMD with VOC content in excess of the values specified in a table incorporated in the Rule.

GPU Goals, Policies & Actions
Applicable GPU policies and actions related to air quality include the following:

Resource Management Element
Goal RM-4: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Improved air quality in San Jacinto and the region through reductions in air pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG emissions).

Policy RM-4.1: Regional Cooperation. Support regional efforts, including those organized through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Southern California Association of Governments, the Western Riverside Council of Governments, and the California Air Resource Board (CARB) to implement the regional Air Quality Management Plan.

Policy RM-4.5: Walkability. Encourage pedestrian-scale development and pedestrian-friendly design features to reduce vehicle emissions.

Policy RM-4.6: Sustainable Development. Encourage and incentivize higher density and mixed-use development opportunities within designated areas of the City to lessen the impacts of traffic congestion on local air quality.

Action RM-4c: Review development, infrastructure, and planning projects for consistency with SCAQMD requirements during the CEQA review process. Require project applicants to prepare air quality analyses to address SCAQMD and General Plan requirements, which include analysis and identification of:

1. Air pollutant emissions associated with the project during construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions.

2. Potential exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants.

3. Significant air quality impacts associated with the project for construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
65 4. Mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to less than significant or the maximum extent feasible where impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant.

Action RM-4n: Future development projects implemented under the General Plan will be required to demonstrate consistency with SCAQMD construction emission thresholds. Where emissions from individual projects exceed SCAQMD thresholds, the following actions shall be incorporated as necessary to minimize impacts. These measures do not exclude the use of other, equally effective mitigation measures. • Require all off-road diesel equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) used for this Project to meet USEPA Tier 4 final off-road emission standards or equivalent. Such equipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices including a California Air Resources Board Certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) or equivalent. The DPF reduces diesel particulate matter and NOx emissions during construction activities. • Require a minimum of 50 percent of construction debris be diverted for recycling. • Require building materials to contain a minimum 10 percent recycled content. • Require materials such as paints, primers, sealants, coatings, and glues to have a low volatile organic compound concentration compared to conventional products. If low VOC materials are not available, architectural coating phasing should be extended sufficiently to reduce the daily emissions of VOCs.

Action RM-4o: Future development projects implemented under the General Plan will be required to demonstrate consistency with SCAQMD’s operational emission thresholds. For projects where operational emissions exceed regulatory thresholds, the following measures may be used to reduce impacts. Note the following measures are not all inclusive and developers have the option to add or substitute measures that are equally or more appropriate for the scope of the project. • Develop a project specific TDM program for residents and/or employees that provides opportunities for carpool/vanpools.
• Provide onsite solar/renewable energy in excess of regulatory requirements. • Require that owners/tenants of non-residential or multi-family residential developments use architectural coatings that are 10 grams per liter or less when repainting/repairing properties. • Require dripless irrigation and irrigation sensor units that prevent watering during rain storms. • Ensure all parking areas are wired for capability of future EV charging and include EV charging stations that exceed regulatory requirements.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None applicable to this Project.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
66 5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Project
Peculiar
Impact that
is not
Substantiall
y Mitigated
by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
67 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed impacts to biological resources on pages 5.4-24 through 5.4.43. The GPU EIR determined future development associated with the GPU would increase urbanization throughout the City and have the potential to result in direct or indirect impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special-status species.

The implementation of the Multiple Specific Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for future implementing projects consistent with the GPU at a project-specific level would minimize direct, indirect, and cumulative biological impacts. As required by the MSHCP Implementing Agreement (MSHCP Section 8.5), payment of the Local Development Mitigation Fee and compliance with all applicable requirements of the MSHCP provides full mitigation under CEQA, National Environmental Policy Act, Federal Endangered Species Act, and California Endangered Species Act for all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to MSHCP covered species and habitats. Species not covered by the MSHCP could be adversely impacted by development under the GPU. However, future development projects would be required to adhere to applicable federal, State, and local regulations that provide for sensitive species as part of the discretionary approval process for site-specific development projects. Compliance with applicable regulations at the time of future development would minimize adverse impacts to sensitive species. Additionally, the GPU Resource Management Element includes policies and actions to preserve and protect biological resources within the Study Area. Nonetheless, the GPU EIR ultimately determined that although numerous regulations including implementation of the MSHCP and GPU policies and actions would minimize impacts to sensitive species, at a program level of review, it cannot be ensured that all impacts could be reduced to less than significant at the site-specific level. Therefore, potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species would be considered significant and unavoidable.

The GPU EIR determined development under the GPU could result in potentially significant impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. However, potential impacts would need to be assessed on a project-specific basis once site-specific development is proposed. The MSHCP requires an assessment for impacts to riparian habitat to determine the presence/absence of such habitat and the measures necessary to mitigate potential direct and indirect impacts associated with the specific development. Additionally, the GPU Resource Management Element includes policies and actions intended to protect sensitive natural communities, including riparian habitat, from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects within the City. Nonetheless, the GPU EIR ultimately determined that although numerous regulations including implementation of the MSHCP and GPU policies and actions would minimize impacts to sensitive riparian habitat, at a program level of review, it cannot be ensured that all impacts could be reduced to less than significant at the site-specific level. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that potential impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities would be considered significant and unavoidable.

The GPU EIR determined subsequent development under the GPU could result in potentially significant impacts to wetlands. However, future development projects would require detailed, site-specific reviews to determine the presence or absence of water features. If water features are present and disturbance is required, federal and State laws require measures to reduce, avoid, or compensate for impacts to these resources. The requirements of these federal and State laws are implemented through the permit process.

Additionally, the GPU Resource Management Element includes policies and actions intended to protect sensitive natural communities, including wetlands, from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects within the City. Overall, the GPU EIR determined that compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, and implementation of GPU policies and actions, would reduce potential impacts to wetlands to a less than significant level.

The GPU EIR also determined that future development under the GPU could result in creation of new barriers to animal movement in the urbanizing portions of the City; however, impacts to wildlife movement would be mitigated through the establishment of corridors and linkages established by compliance with the Western The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
68 Riverside MSHCP. The Western Riverside MSHCP establishes Criteria Area/Cells along with a system of corridors and linkages to accommodate areas with conservation potential and enable wildlife movement within the open areas. In accordance with SJDC Section 17.520.030, Plant and Habitat Conservation, future development projects would be required to comply with the applicable terms in the MSHCP, including, but not limited to, the payment of mitigation fees, narrow endemic surveys, riparian/riverine policy, and other applicable surveys. Additionally, applicants for a discretionary permit for property located in Criteria Area/Criteria Cell(s) as designated in the MSHCP must submit a Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) application to the Riverside County Environmental Programs Department and subsequently to the Western Riverside Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) for Joint Project Review (JPR).

In addition, the MSHCP protects native wildlife nursery sites by conserving large blocks of representative native habitats suitable for supporting species’ lifecycle requirements and the essential ecological processes of species which depend on such habitats. Further, GPU Action RM-1j requires vegetation and tree removal that would occur during the bird nesting season would be required to conduct surveys to determine whether active bird nests are observed within the site or vicinity. If active nests are identified, buffers would be required to be implemented and compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) would be required.

Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that through the protections afforded by the MSHCP, the MBTA, and GPU goals, policies, and actions, future development under the GPU would have a less than significant impact associated with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

The GPU EIR determined future development under the GPU would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The City of San Jacinto does not have an adopted tree policy or ordinance. Future development projects under the GPU located within criteria cell areas are required to be reviewed through the MSHCP Joint Project Review as appropriate. Additionally, future development projects would be assessed for consistency with the SJMC and GPU goals, policies, and actions. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Biological Resources Assessment, Jurisdictional Delineation Report & MSHCP Consistency Analysis, prepared by Jacobs (Jacobs, 2022), and included as Appendix C. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.4-24 and was determined to be significant and unavoidable.

As discussed on Page 5.4-24 of the GPU EIR, the GPU was determined to result in potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species that would be considered significant and unavoidable.

Consistent with GPU Action RM-1i, a Project-specific Biological Resources Assessment (BRA), Jurisdictional Delineation Report and MSHCP Consistency Analysis was conducted (included as Appendix C). The BRA describes the Project site as completely disturbed and no longer supporting any native habitat. The BRA included a field survey, which did not identify any special status plant or animal species on the Project site.

Due to the environmental conditions on site and the adjacent disturbances, the BRA determined that the Project site is likely not suitable to support any of the listed species that have been documented in the Project vicinity. Further, the BRA determined that the site does not contain any sensitive habitats. Therefore, because none of the documented species or habitats listed in the GPU EIR were observed during the field survey and because the site does not provide suitable habitat for sensitive species, impacts would be less than significant.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
69 On October 10, 2024, the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) approved naming the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia, burrowing owl) as a candidate for potential listing as a protected species in California under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Under CESA, candidate species receive the same protections as officially listed species until a final decision is made. The BRA details that the nearest documented burrowing owl occurrence is approximately 0.7-mile east of the site. However, the Project site is within a MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area; therefore, a burrowing owl habitat suitability assessment was conducted, which did not identify evidence of burrowing owl within the Project site.

As described in the BRA, the survey consisted of walking transects spaces approximately 10 meters (30 feet) apart to provide 100 percent visual coverage of the Project site. The results of the survey did not identify evidence of burrowing owl. The survey details that no individuals, castings, feathers, or whitewash was observed on the site; and that no borrow surrogates or approximately sized mammal dens were found. The survey determined that the Project site does not contain suitable habitat to support the species, as burrowing owl prefer short or sparce vegetation that does not exist on the site (Appendix C). Overall, the survey determined burrowing owl and supportive habitat were absent from the site. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.

However, consistent with GPU Action RM-1j, if ground disturbing activities occur within the nesting bird season (February 1 to August 31), the Project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey no more than three days prior to the commencement of construction activities. With implementation of GPU Action RM-1j, potential impacts to burrowing owls would be further reduced. Project impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species would be less than significant, and no new impacts would occur.

As such, the proposed Project would have less impacts than those identified by the GPU EIR. The Project would not result in new or increased impacts.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated on GPU EIR page 5.4-28 and was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact.

As discussed on page 5.4-28 of the GPU EIR, the CNDDB identified 12 sensitive natural communities within the 12-quad search area consisting of: Canyon Live Oak Ravine Forest, Desert Fan Palm Oasis Woodland, Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Southern Mixed Riparian Forest, Southern Riparian Scrub, and Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland.

The Project site consists of vacant, disturbed land and does not include any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community (Appendix C). Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. As such, the proposed Project would have less impacts than those identified by the GPU EIR, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.4-32 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

The BRA assessed the Project site for the presence of any state and/or federal jurisdictional waters. No vernal pools were identified within the Project site during the field survey conducted as part of the BRA.

Additionally, the BRA included a review of historic aerial imagery and USGS topographic maps which showed no vernal pools or other natural wetland features existed historically within the Project site (Appendix C). The result of the jurisdictional waters assessment found that there are no wetland or non-wetland Waters The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
70 of the United States or waters of the State within the Project site that would potentially be subject to regulation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under Section 401 of the CWA and/or Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, or the CDFW under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Commission, respectively (Appendix C). Therefore, the Project would result in no new or increased impacts to state or federally protected wetlands. As such, the proposed Project would have less impacts than those identified by the GPU EIR, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.4-35 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

The BRA describes that the Project site is not located within a designated wildlife corridor or linkage. The Project site consists of flat, disturbed land that is surrounded by urban development such as residential uses, commercial uses, and roadways. No wildlife movement corridors were found to be present on or adjacent to the Project site. Thus, impacts related to wildlife movement corridors would not occur with implementation of the Project.

The Project site has the potential to support songbird and raptor nests due to the presence of shrubs and ground cover. Project activities could disturb or destroy active migratory bird nests including eggs and young.

Disturbing or destroying active nests is a violation of the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). In addition, nests and eggs are protected under Fish and Game Code Section 3503. As such, direct impacts to breeding birds (e.g., through nest removal) or indirect impacts (e.g., by noise causing abandonment of the nest) is considered a potentially significant impact. Consistent with GPU Action RM-1j, a nesting bird survey would be required if vegetation is removed during nesting season (February 1 to August 31), which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not interfere with the wildlife movement or nesting birds. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new impact. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.4-38 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

The City does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance; however, SJMC Chapter 12.20 addresses the City’s tree planting and street improvement plan and requires authorization for the removal of trees in public parks, public grounds, public streets, or parking places in the City. The Project site does not contain any trees as determined by the BRA (Appendix C).

The Project site is within the Western Riverside County MSHCP San Jacinto Valley Area Plan but is not within or adjacent any MSHCP Criteria Cells or Cell Groups. Therefore, implementation of the MSHCP Section 6.1.4 Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface is not required. Additionally, the Project is consistent with the MSHCP policies found in Sections 3 and 6 of the MSHCP, which include Riparian/Riverine Areas/Vernal Pools, Narrow Endemic Plant Species, Criteria Area Species, Urban/Wildlands Interface, and Surveys for Special Status Species (BUOW) (Appendix C). The Project Applicant would be required to pay the required MSHCP fees. No conservation or avoidance measures would be required, and development of the Project site would be consistent with the San Jacinto Area Plan conservation criteria and overall conservation goals and objectives set forth in the MSHCP (Appendix C). Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with local polices or ordinances protecting trees and biological resources The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
71 and no new or increased impact would occur. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new impact. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.4-40 and was determined to be less than significant. The GPU EIR states that there are two Habitat Conservation Plans/Natural Community Conservation Plans within the Study Area: the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan and the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The Project site is not within the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan.

The Project site is located within the San Jacinto Valley Area Plan of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.

The Project site is not located within a Criteria Cell or Cell Group. A discussion of the applicable Western Riverside County MSHCP requirements by MSHCP section is provided below:

Pursuant to Section 3.3.12 of the MSHCP, Subunits are areas within an Area Plan that contain target conservation acreages along with a description of the planning species, biological issues, and considerations.

According to the Western Riverside County MSHCP GIS overlay, the Subject Parcel is not located within a Subunit Area or Criteria Cell (Appendix C).

Pursuant to Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, additional surveys may be needed for certain species in conjunction with Plan implementation to achieve coverage for these species. According to the Western Riverside County MSHCP GIS overlay, the Project site is not located in an area where additional surveys are required for any amphibians, mammals, invertebrates, or other Criteria Area species (Appendix C).

Pursuant to Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, surveys shall be conducted within suitable habitat for burrowing owl according to accepted protocols. As discussed above, the Project site is located in an area where surveys are required for burrowing owl. The BRA included a burrowing owl survey, which did not identify evidence of burrowing owl on the Project site. Additionally, no borrow surrogates, mammal dens, or suitable habitat were identified on the site. Therefore, burrowing owl are considered absent from the Project site (Appendix C) and the Project would not conflict with the provisions of the MSHCP. Consistent with GPU Action RM-1j, if ground disturbing activities occur within the nesting bird season (February 1 to August 31), the Project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey no more than three days prior to the commencement of construction activities.

Pursuant to Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, Riparian/Riverine areas are lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent vegetation, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from nearby fresh water sources, or areas with freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year. Pursuant to Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, Vernal Pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season.

No Riparian/Riverine areas were found within the Project site. There are no natural or manmade features that support any aquatic resources, stream-dependent wildlife resources, or riparian habitats within the Project site. Additionally, no vernal pools were identified within the Project site and based on a review of historic aerial imagery and USGS topographic maps as detailed in the BRA (Appendix C), no vernal pools or other natural wetland features existed historically within the Project site.

Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP presents guidelines to minimize indirect effects of projects adjacent to MSCHP Conservation Areas. These guidelines are intended to reduce potential Edge Effects that could adversely affect biological resources within the MSHCP Conservation Areas. This section provides mitigation measures The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
72 for impacts associated with Drainage, Toxics, Lighting, Noise, Invasives, Barriers, and Grading/Land Development. The Project site is not located within or adjacent to a Western Riverside County MSHCP Conservation Area; therefore, the Urban/Wildlands Interface requirements are not applicable to the Project (Appendix C).

Therefore, the Project would result in no impacts to habitat conservation plans. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new impact.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Biological Resources, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU EIR would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would not result in an impact which was not adequately evaluated by the GPU EIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) DP/S BIO-1: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The list of migratory bird species protected by the law is primarily based on bird families and species included in the four international conservation treaties that the U.S. entered into with Canada in 1916, Mexico in 1936, Japan in 1972, and Russia in 1976. The list of birds protected under the law can be found under Title 50 Part 10.13 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Additionally, California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” California Fish and Game Code Section 3511 prohibits the taking of any bird listed as fully protected and Section 3515 states that is it unlawful to take any non-game migratory bird protected under the MBTA.

GPU Goals, Policies & Actions
Applicable GPU policies and actions related to biological resources include the following:

Resource Management Element
Action RM-1d: Cooperate with the County of Riverside to develop and manage preserve areas within the urban landscape. During the review of development proposals, use the Western Riverside County MSHCP Habitat Conservation Plan (particularly Section 3.2.13 San Jacinto Valley Area Plan) to help assess potential project impacts and mitigation requirements. Development in the City shall be required to comply with the applicable terms of the MSHCP including, but not limited to, the payment of mitigation fees, narrow endemic surveys, riparian/riverine policy, and other applicable surveys. Projects located within criteria cell areas shall be reviewed through the MSHCP Joint Project Review as appropriate.

Action RM-1i: During the development review process, require Applicants of developments with the potential to reduce or eliminate habitat for native plant and wildlife species or sensitive habitats not covered by the MSHCP, as determined by the City of San Jacinto’s Community Development Department, to prepare a site- The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
73 specific general biological resources survey to identify the presence of any sensitive biological resources, including any sensitive plant or wildlife species. The report shall identify the need for focused presence/absence surveys and identify the presence of state or federal regulated wetlands or waters.

Required surveys shall be conducted by qualified biologists and/or botanists in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) survey protocols for target species. If no sensitive species are observed during the field survey then no further mitigation will be required. If sensitive species or habitats, including wetlands are documented on the project site, the project applicant shall comply with the applicable requirements of the regulatory agencies and shall apply mitigation determined through the agency permitting process.

Action RM-1j: Where feasible, vegetation and tree removal should occur outside of the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If not feasible, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey no more than three days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document the negative results if no active bird nests are observed on the project site or within the vicinity during the clearance survey with a brief letter report, submitted to the City of San Jacinto Community Development Department prior to construction, indicating that no impacts to active bird nests would occur before construction can proceed. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For listed and raptor species, this buffer shall be 500 feet. A biological monitor shall be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure the nesting behavior is not adversely affected by construction activity, pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Prior to the commencement of construction activities and the issuance of any permits, results of the pre-construction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the City of San Jacinto Community Development Department, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and other appropriate agencies.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None applicable to this Project.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
74 5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed impacts to cultural resources on pages 5.5-24 through 5.5-31. The GPU EIR determined that while the GPU does not directly propose any changes to any historic or archaeological resources, future development allowed under the GPU could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of known historical or archaeological resources or unknown historical or archaeological resources which have not yet been identified which could result in a potentially significant impact. However, the GPU Resource Management Element includes goals, policies, and actions addressing heritage resources, including historical and archaeological resources. Additionally, future development projects under the GPU would be evaluated for conformance with the City’s General Plan, SJMC, and other applicable State and local regulations relative to historic, potentially historic and archaeological resources. Future development projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA, pursuant to the City’s entitlement review process. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that with compliance with the GPU policies and actions and existing regulations, the GPU would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource and impacts would be less than significant. The GPU EIR also determined compliance with the GPU policies and actions and existing regulations, including Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), and PRC Section 5097.98, would ensure that potential impacts associated with the inadvertent discovery of human remains would be reduced to less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
This section was prepared using the following reports:
• Cultural Resources Study, prepared December 1, 2023, by BFSA Environmental Services (BFSA 2023a), and included as Appendix D.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
75 No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.5-24 and was determined to be less than significant.

CEQA defines a historical resource as something that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); (3) identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (4) determined to be a historical resource by a Project’s Lead Agency (PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[a]).

The California Register defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns or local or regional history of the cultural heritage of California or the United States; (2) associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or (4) has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

Consistent with GPU Action RM-3c, a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for the Project, which is included as Appendix D. The Cultural Resources Assessment conducted a field survey of the entire Project site on November 9, 2023, which did not identify any historic or prehistoric cultural resources within the Project site. As a result, the proposed Project would not cause an adverse effect to a historic resource and no mitigation is necessary. Therefore, the Project would not result in a new impact related to an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new impact. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.5-26 and was determined to be less than significant.

The Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment included a search from the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California at Riverside (UCR). The results of the records search identified 50 cultural resource sites within a one-mile radius of the Project site, none of which are located within the Project boundaries. The records search also indicated that 30 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within one mile of the Project boundaries, none of which overlap with the Project site. In addition to the records search, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC responded on December 5, 2023, stating the SLF search was negative for previously known tribal cultural resources or sacred lands within one mile of the Project site.

On November 9, 2023, a field survey of the Project area was conducted which did not result in the identification of cultural resources within the Project site (Appendix D). The Cultural Resources Assessment concluded that the Project site did not historically contain any structures and was primarily utilized for agriculture. Given the lack of historic development/occupation on the Project site and the previous agricultural use of the site, there is low potential for archaeological resources to be encountered on the site (Appendix D). As such, consistent with GPU Action RM-3f, if any cultural resources are inadvertently discovered, all construction work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall stop, and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine if further mitigation measures are warranted. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to adverse changes in the significance of an archaeological resource. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new impact.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
76 c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.5-28 and was determined to have a less than significant impact with compliance with GPU policies and actions and existing regulations. The Project site does not contain a cemetery, and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Nevertheless, should human remains be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with Project development, the construction contractor would be required by California law to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. According to Section 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. According to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials.

Through compliance with GPU policies and actions and mandatory compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the Project would not result in significant impacts to human remains, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impact related to disturbance of human remains. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new impact.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of cultural resources, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) DP/S CUL-1: Human Remains. Should human remains or funerary objects be discovered during project construction, the project would be required to comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that no further disturbance may occur in the vicinity of the body (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine the identity of and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD must complete the inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
77 GPU Goals, Policies & Actions
Applicable GPU policies and actions related to cultural resources include the following:

Resource Management Element
Policy RM-3.1: Preservation. Protect areas containing significant historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, as defined by the California Public Resources Code.

Action RM-3a: Continue to assess development proposals for potential impacts to sensitive historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Action RM-3c: For all development proposals within areas with the potential to contain prehistoric/historic resources, the City shall require a study to be conducted by a professional archaeologist. The objective of the study will be to determine if significant archaeological resources are potentially present and if the project will significantly impact these resources. If significant impacts are identified, the City may require the project to be modified to avoid the impacts, or require mitigation measures to mitigate the impacts. Mitigation may involve archaeological investigation and resources recovery.

Action RM-3f: The City shall make provisions for archeological resources accidentally discovered during construction for projects where the City has approval authority over the project. These provisions shall include an immediate evaluation of the find and contingency funding and time allotment sufficient to allow for the recovery of the archeological resource or implement measures to avoid disturbing the resource if the archeological resource is determined to be unique.

Action RM-3g: In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the City shall halt excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the remains are of Native American origin, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the descendants from the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation to the landowner or the persons responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98, or the Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being granted access to the site.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None applicable to this Project.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
78 5.6. ENERGY
Project
Peculiar
Impact that
is not
Substantiall
y Mitigated
by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during Project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed impacts related to energy throughout the document on pages 5.6-8 through 5.6-14.

The GPU EIR determined that buildout of the GPU would use energy resources for the operation of buildings (electricity and natural gas), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel), and from off-road construction activities (e.g. diesel fuel). As future development projects are proposed under the GPU, developers of individual projects would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and would rely heavily on reducing per capita energy consumption to achieve this goal, including through Statewide and local measures. Additionally, future projects would be required to adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. For example, Southern California Edison is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the Statewide Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g., solar and wind) within its energy portfolio. Additionally, the GPU includes policies and actions to support energy conservation and renewable energy, as well as reducing energy use. Overall, the GPU EIR determined implementation of the GPU would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy use or increasing the use of renewable energy. Impacts would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum for the proposed Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project, San Jacinto, California. LSA. August 2, 2024. Appendix A. a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.6-8 through 5.6-14 and determined impacts would be less than significant.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
79 Construction
During construction of the proposed Project, energy would be consumed in three general forms:

1. Petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment, construction worker travel to and from the site, as well as delivery truck trips;

2. Electricity associated with providing temporary power for lighting and electric equipment; and

3. Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, paint, fencing, lighting, and gate materials.

Based on these uses of energy during construction activities, the proposed Project would not be expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per-unit of-development basis than other development projects in Southern California. Construction of the Project does not involve any unusual or increased need for energy.

In addition, the extent of construction activities that would occur is limited to a 18-month period, and the demand for construction-related electricity and fuels would be limited to that time frame. There are no unusual Project characteristics that would cause the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient compared with other similar construction sites in other parts of the state. Therefore, constructionrelated fuel consumption by the Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy use compared with other construction sites in the region, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, there would be no new impacts.

Operation
Once operational, the Project would generate demand for electricity as well as gasoline for motor vehicle trips. Operational use of energy includes the heating, cooling, and lighting of the residences, water heating, operation of electrical systems and plug-in appliances, and outdoor lighting, and the transport of electricity and water to the residences, no additional energy infrastructure would be required to be built to operate the Project, and no operational activities would occur that would result in extraordinary energy consumption.

As detailed in Table E-1, operation of the proposed Project is estimated to result in the annual use of approximately 2,381,794 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, no natural gas, approximately 269,380 gallons of gasoline fuel, and approximately 193,266 gallons of diesel fuel.

Table E-1: Energy Consumption Estimates During Project Operation Energy Type Annual Energy Consumption
Electricity Consumption (kWh/year) 2,381,794
Natural Gas Consumption (kBTU/year) 0.0
Automotive Fuel Consumption
Gasoline (gallons/year) 269,380
Diesel Fuel (gallons/year) 193,266
kWh = kilowatt hours
kBTU = thousand British Thermal units
Source: Table I, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum (Appendix A) According to the California Energy Commission, total electricity consumption in Riverside County in 2022 was 17,780,573,271 kWh; therefore, operation of the proposed Project would negligibly increase the annual electricity consumption in Riverside County by approximately less than 0.1 percent (California Energy Commission, 2022). Based on fuel consumption obtained from CARB’s California Emissions Factor Model, Version 2021 (EMFAC2021), approximately 716 million gallons of gasoline and approximately 303 million gallons of diesel are anticipated to be consumed from vehicle trips in Riverside County in 2026 (CARB, 2024). Therefore, vehicle trips associated with operation of the proposed Project would increase the annual fuel use in Riverside County by approximately less than 0.1 percent for gasoline fuel usage and The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
80 approximately less than 0.1 percent for diesel fuel usage. The proposed Project would result in fuel usage that is a small fraction of current annual fuel use in Riverside County, and fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by Project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. Therefore, gasoline demand generated by vehicle trips associated with the proposed Project would be a minimal fraction of gasoline and diesel fuel consumption in California.

The proposed Project would be required to meet the current Title 24 energy efficiency standards, as verified through the City’s plan check and permitting process. Typical Title 24 measures include insulation; use of energy-efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); solar-reflective roofing materials; energy- efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water; and incorporation of skylights, etc. In complying with the Title 24 standards, impacts to peak energy usage would be minimized, and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would be reduced. Thus, operation of the Project would not use large amounts of energy or fuel in a wasteful manner, and operational energy impacts would be less than significant. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new impact.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.6-8 through 5.6-14 and determined impacts would be less than significant.

The California Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are designed to ensure new and existing buildings achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. The California Energy Commission is responsible for adopting, implementing, and updating building energy efficiency. Local city and county enforcement agencies have the authority to verify compliance with applicable building codes, including energy efficiency. The proposed Project would be required to meet the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 energy efficiency standards in effect during permitting of the Project, included as Municipal Code Section 16.65.060, which would be ensured through the City’s development review and permitting process. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would not occur. The proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Energy, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None applicable to this Project.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
81 GPU Goals, Policies & Actions
Applicable GPU policies and actions related to energy include the following:

Goal RM-5: Energy and Mineral Resources. A community that safely manages its energy and mineral Resources.

Action RM-5c: During the development review process, encourage innovative building design, layout, and orientation techniques to minimize energy use by taking advantage of sun/shade patterns, prevailing winds, landscaping and building materials that control energy usage, and solar design.

Action RM-5e: Continue to review development projects to ensure that all new public and private development complies with the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 standards as well as the energy efficiency standards established by the General Plan and the Municipal Code.

Action RM-5g: Encourage new development projects to install electrified space (HVAC) and water heating systems in lieu of natural gas systems, above and beyond the requirements of Title 24, before and during the building plan check process.

Action RM-5h: During the development review process, require that all new developments adjacent to or near natural gas lines, coordinate with So Cal Gas to install and connect to the lines, as feasible.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None applicable to this Project.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
82 5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Project
Peculiar
Impact that
is not
Substantially
Mitigated
by Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the Project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
83 Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
Geology and Soils. The GPU EIR discussed impacts related to geology and soils on pages 5.7-20 through

5.7-36. The GPU EIR discusses that the City lies within the San Jacinto fault zone which includes a number of faults. As a result, future development in the City under the GPU may expose people or structures to potential adverse effects associated with a seismic event, including rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure. However, as future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the California Building Code (CBC), General Plan, SJMC, and other regulations. Subsequent development and infrastructure would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. In addition to the requirements associated with the CBC and the SJMC, the General Plan includes policies and actions in both the Public Safety Element and Resource Management Element to address potential impacts associated with seismic activity. Further, development projects are reviewed to address seismic safety issues and would be required to provide adequate mitigation for existing and potential hazards identified. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that with the implementation of the policies and actions in the General Plan, as well as applicable State and City codes, potential impacts associated with a seismic event, including rupture of an earthquake fault, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides would be less than significant.

The GPU EIR determined implementation of the GPU would provide for development and improvement projects that would involve some land clearing, mass grading, and other ground-disturbing activities that could temporarily increase soil erosion rates during and shortly after project construction. However, as future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be evaluated for conformance with the CBC, General Plan, SJMC, and other regulations. In compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit regulations, the State of California requires that any construction activity disturbing one acre or more of soil comply with the Construction General Permit. The permit requires development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control best management practices (BMPs) that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control stormwater quality degradation due to potential construction-related pollutants. Additionally, future development projects under the GPU would be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that with the implementation of the policies and actions in the GPU, as well as applicable State and City requirements, potential impacts associated with erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

The GPU EIR determined the City of San Jacinto includes geologic units and soil conditions that could be unstable resulting in the potential for landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

However, as future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City of San Jacinto, each project would be evaluated for conformance with the CBC, the GPU policies and actions, SJMC, and other regulations. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Further, future development and improvement projects would be required to prepare site-specific geotechnical studies to identify geologic and soil conditions specific to the site and provide design recommendations consistent with the requirements of State and City codes. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that with the implementation of the policies and actions in the GPU, as well as applicable State and City codes, potential impacts associated with unstable systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
84 geologic conditions with the potential to result in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse would be reduced to less than significant.

The GPU EIR determined the GPU would not result in significant adverse impacts related to expansive soils because future development projects would require preparation of a site-specific geotechnical investigation which would identify the potential for damage related to expansive soils and non-uniformly compacted fill and engineered fill. If a risk is identified, design criteria and specification options may include removal of the problematic soils, and replacement, as needed, with properly conditioned and compacted fill material that is designed to withstand the forces exerted during the expected shrink-swell cycles and settlements.

Design criteria and specifications set forth in the design-level geotechnical investigation would ensure impacts from problematic soils are minimized. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.

Additionally, the GPU EIR determined that with implementation of the policies and actions in the GPU, as well as applicable State and City codes, potential impacts associated with having soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be less than significant.

Paleontological Resources. The GPU EIR discussed impacts related to paleontological resources on pages

5.7-33 through 5.7-35. The GPU EIR discusses that no geologic units in the City are assigned a very high sensitivity. However, the following geologic units within the City are assigned a high sensitivity: Mount Eden Formation at surface, Bautista Formation at surface, Older Surficial Sediments at surface, and Surficial Sediments at depth. The GPU EIR determined that with implementation of the GPU policies and actions and compliance with SJDC Section 17.500.020 which requires site-specific paleontological studies for projects located in an area identified as having high paleontological sensitivity, potential impacts to paleontological resources associated with future development anticipated by the GPU would be reduced to less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
This section was prepared using the following reports:
• Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation Proposed Single-Family Residential Development Assessor’s Parcel Number 439-180-011, prepared May 11, 2023, by Geotek, Inc. (Geotek, 2023), and included as Appendix E.
• Paleontological Assessment for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project, prepared December 1, 2023, by BFSA Environmental Services (BFSA 2023b), and included as Appendix F. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.5-20 and was determined to have a less than significant impact with compliance of regulatory requirements, and policies and actions of the GPU.

As stated in the GPU EIR, the City is located within the San Jacinto fault zone.

The Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix E) identified that the Project site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The closest fault zone is the San Jacinto Fault, located approximately one mile southwest of the site. Since no known faults exist within the Project site, the probability of ground surface rupture occurring at the site is unlikely to occur. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
85 related to rupture of a known fault. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new impact. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.5-20 and was determined to have a less than significant impact with compliance of regulatory requirements, and policies and actions of the GPU.

The Project site is located in a seismically active region, as is all of southern California. Due to the location of nearby and regional faults, the Project site could be subject to seismically related strong ground shaking.

The amount of motion expected at a building site can vary from none to forceful depending upon the distance to the fault, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the local geology. Greater movement can be expected at sites located closer to an earthquake epicenter, that consist of poorly consolidated material such as alluvium located near the source, and in response to an earthquake of great magnitude.

As discussed above, the San Jacinto Fault lies approximately one mile southwest of the site. Due to the site’s close proximity to this fault, the Project site is expected to be subject to strong seismic ground shaking during the life of the Project. However, the proposed Project would be designed in accordance with Chapter 16 of the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC includes provisions for earthquake resistant design that include considerations for geologic hazard and onsite soil conditions. The City of San Jacinto has adopted the CBC in Section 15.04.020 of the SJMC and the Project would be required to adhere to the provisions of the CBC, as part of the plan check and development review process. Additionally, the City has adopted an Earthquake Hazard Reduction Code under Chapter 15.24 of the SJMC which includes standards for structural seismic resistance established primarily to reduce the risk of life loss or injury. The proposed Project would be required to comply with Chapter 15.24 of the SJMC as well as with the requirements of the CBC and policies and actions in the GPU which would reduce hazards from strong seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on people or structures due to strong seismic ground shaking. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new impact. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.5-20 and was determined to have a less than significant impact with compliance of regulatory requirements, and policies and actions of the GPU.

Figure 5.7-2, Liquefaction Susceptibility, of the GPU EIR maps the Project site as having moderate liquefaction susceptibility. However, the Geotechnical Investigation that was prepared for the Project found that the site is not considered susceptible to liquefaction due to the depth of groundwater which is expected to be greater than 100 feet below ground surface (bgs) (Appendix E).

Additionally, as described previously, the proposed Project would be required to be constructed in compliance with the CBC and the City’s Development Code, which would be verified through the City’s plan check and permitting process. Thus, potential impacts related to liquefaction, settlement, and subsidence would be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts on people or structures due to ground failure or liquefaction. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact. iv. Landslides?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.5-20 and was determined to have a less than significant impact with compliance of regulatory requirements, and policies and actions of the GPU.

The Project site is flat and is not located near substantial slopes or hillsides. There are no known landslides near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. Additionally, according to GPU EIR Figure 5.7-5, Landslide Susceptibility, the Project site is not within an area mapped for high susceptibility The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
86 to landslides. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to slope instability or seismically induced landslides, and the Project would result in no new impacts related to landslides. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact.
b) Result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages on pages 5.7-23 and was determined to have a less than significant impact with compliance with regulatory requirements, and policies and actions of the GPU.

To reduce the potential for soil erosion and the loss of topsoil, the preparation of a SWPPP is required by the City and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations. The SWPPP is required to address site-specific conditions related to specific grading and construction activities that could cause erosion and the loss of topsoil and provide erosion control BMPs to reduce or eliminate the erosion and loss of topsoil.

Erosion control BMPs include use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, hydroseeding, etc. Therefore, with the implementation of a SWPPP, the Project would result in no new impacts in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Further, the Project would comply with GPU Action RM1f which requires proper geotechnical and soil management techniques to be implemented during the development review process. Additionally, the Project complies with GPU Action RM-2a which requires new development projects control stormwater runoff through implementation of BMPs to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.7-24 and was determined to have a less than significant impact with compliance with regulatory requirements, the preparation of a site-specific geotechnical study, and policies and actions of the GPU.

As described above, the Project site is flat and does not contain nor is adjacent to any significant slope of hillside area. The Project would not create slopes. Thus, on or off-site landslides would not occur from implementation of the Project.

As shown in GPU EIR Figure 5.7-2, Liquefaction Susceptibility, the Project site is in an area of moderate liquefaction susceptibility (City of San Jacinto, 2022a). Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. Consistent with GPU Action PS-1g, a Project specific Geotechnical Evaluation was prepared. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, the Project site is not susceptible to lateral spreading (Appendix E) due to the depth of groundwater. As described above, the Project site is not susceptible to liquefaction due to the lack of groundwater.

Additionally, consistent with GPU Action RM-1f, during the development review process, proper geotechnical and soil management techniques would be implemented which would further reduce potential impacts related to lateral spreading and liquefaction.

Subsidence is a general lowering of the ground surface over a large area that is generally attributed to lowering of the ground water levels within a groundwater basin. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
87 a subsidence loss ranging up to 0.2 foot is estimated to occur at the site (Appendix E). However, compliance with the requirements of the CBC as ensured by the City through the permitting process and adherence to GPU policies and actions would reduce potential impacts related to lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse to a less than significant level. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.7-28 and was determined to have a less than significant impact with compliance with regulatory requirements, and policies and actions of the GPU. Expansive soils contain clay particles that swell when wet and shrink when dry. Foundations constructed on expansive soils are subjected to forces caused by the swelling and shrinkage of the soils and could result in heaving and cracking of buildings and foundations.

The Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix E) identifies that the soils that were encountered during onsite borings consisted of interbedded layers of silty sands, silts and sands. The Geotechnical Investigation conducted soils testing, which determined that site soils generally have a “very low” expansion index.

Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new impact.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.7-31 and was determined to have a less than significant impact. Because no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed as part of the Project, impacts related to these facilities would not occur. The Project would install onsite sewers that would connect to the existing wastewater infrastructure that is adjacent to the site. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new impact.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.7-33 and was determined to have a less than significant impact with compliance with the GPU policies and actions and compliance with SJDC Section 17.500.020.

According to GPU EIR Figure 5.7-6, Paleontological Sensitivity, the Project site is mapped as having high sensitivity for paleontological resources with depth. Therefore, consistent with GPU Action RM-3e, a Projectspecific Paleontological Resource Assessment was conducted by BFSA Environmental Services on December 1, 2023 (Appendix F). The Paleontological Resource Assessment included a review of paleontological literature and fossil locality records, a review of the underlying geology and a field survey.

The records search indicates that no known fossil localities are present within the Project site; however, fossils have been found and recorded approximately three and four miles southwest of the Project site. These localities consist of several species of large Pleistocene mammals. Additionally, approximately five miles southwest of the Project site, a locality consisting of the bones of an extinct horse and other unidentified large mammal remains was discovered. Further, geologic deposits known as “Bautista Beds” exist south and east of the Project site. These deposits have yielded the fossilized remains of early Pleistocene mammals. A field survey of the Project site was conducted that identified no paleontological resources, or evidence indicating the presence of paleontological resources.

Geologically, a majority of the Project site is underlain by Holocene-aged alluvial wash deposits which are considered to have a low paleontological sensitivity. Additionally, Holocene to late Pleistocene-aged young The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
88 alluvial fan deposits are mapped at the southwest tip of the site. Due to the presence of young alluvial wash deposits and young alluvial deposits at the surface of the site and the typical lack of paleontological resources found in young alluvial deposits, paleontological monitoring is not required during earth disturbing activities (Appendix F). However, consistent with GPU Action RM-3f, in the event that paleontological resources are exposed during ground-disturbing activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained, and construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for significance by the paleontologist and curated as appropriate. Implementation of the GPU Action RM-3f would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts and would result in no new impacts that would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Geology and Soils, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) DP/S GEO-1: California Building Code. The Project will be designed and constructed in accordance with San Jacinto Municipal Code Section 15.04.020, which adopts the California Building Code (CBC). New construction, alteration, or rehabilitation shall comply with applicable ordinances set forth by the City and/or by the most recent City building and seismic codes in effect at the time of Project design.

DP/S HYD-1: Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The Project will be constructed in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with the Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No 2009- 0009- DWQ (as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ), NPDES No. CAS000002 (or the latest approved Construction General Permit). Compliance requires filing a Notice of Intent (NOI); a Risk Assessment; a Site Map; a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and associated Best Management Practices (BMPs); an annual fee; and a signed certification statement.

GPU Goals, Policies & Actions
Applicable GPU policies and actions related to geology, soils and paleontological resources include the following:

Resource Management Element
Policy PS-1.2: Earthquake Protection. Enforce State seismic design guidelines and all relevant building codes to reduce the risk of damage associated with seismic activity.

Policy PS-1.6: Impact Reduction. Reduce the risk of impacts from geologic and seismic hazards by applying proper and up to date land use planning, development engineering, building construction, and retrofitting requirements.

Action LU-3a: Ensure all projects are reviewed and processed per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
89 Action PS-1a: Review development proposals to ensure compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 19100 et seq. (Earthquake Protection Law), which requires that buildings be designed to resist stresses produced by natural forces such as earthquakes and wind.

Action PS-1d: Reduce the risk to the community from hazards related to geologic conditions, seismic activity, flooding, and wildfires by requiring feasible mitigation of such impacts on development projects. Assess development proposals for potential hazards pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Require measures to mitigate all identified significant public safety hazards.

Action PS-1f: To minimize damage from earthquakes and other geologic activity, adopt and implement the most recent State seismic requirements for structural design of new development and redevelopment.

Action PS-1g: During review of discretionary development and redevelopment proposals, require surveys of soil and geologic conditions by State licensed Engineering Geologists and Civil Engineers where appropriate. When potential geologic impacts are identified require project applicants to mitigate the impacts per the recommendations contained within the geologic survey.

Action RM-1f: During the development review process, ensure proper geotechnical and soil management techniques are implemented. To enforce this, the City Engineer or Director may request the completion of a survey of soil and geologic conditions by a State licensed Engineering Geologist and Civil Engineer, where appropriate. When potential geologic impacts are identified require project applicants to mitigate the impacts per the recommendations contained within the survey.

Action RM-2a: To reduce soil erosion and pollutants in urban runoff, require new development and redevelopment projects control stormwater runoff through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. Existing development shall control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. As specific development projects are implemented, project proponents will be required to consult with relevant agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Also, ensure that projects of one acre or more complete a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Santa Ana Region – Order No. 00-65 and the City’s MS4 permit (order no. R8-2002-0011 (NPDES No. CAS 618033).

Action RM-3e: The City shall require an assessment of the potential for development proposals to significantly impact paleontological resources pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. If the project involves earthworks, the City may require a study conducted by a professional paleontologist to determine if paleontological assets are present, and if the project will significantly impact the resources. If significant impacts are identified, the City may require the project to be modified to avoid impacting the paleontological materials, require monitoring of rock units with high potential to contain significant nonrenewable paleontologic resources, or require mitigation measures to mitigate the impacts, such as recovering the paleontological resources for preservation.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None applicable to this Project.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
90 5.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) on pages 5.8-18 through 5.8-41. The GPU EIR determined implementation of the GPU would contribute to increases of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are associated with global climate change. A majority of GHG emissions from buildout of the GPU are anticipated to come from the transportation sector. In 2017, the community emissions for the City of San Jacinto were 3.5 metric tons of carb dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per service population (SP). In an effort to support the State's goal for GHG emissions reduction by the year 2030 as mandated by SB 32, the City has set a target to reduce community-wide emissions to 1.83 MTCO2e per SP by the year 2030. This equates to a total annual emissions target of 147,932 MTCO2e per year by the year 2030, based on the City’s population and jobs forecasts. The City also set a longer-range goal of 0.62 MTCO2e per SP by 2050, consistent with the State’s goal to achieve 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The City participates in the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Subregional Climate Action Plan (CAP) which includes emissions targets for the year 2030 and 2050 and a list of GHG reduction measures aimed at reducing GHG emissions throughout the region. The GPU EIR determined that the implementation of these measures as well as other City efforts to reduce GHG emissions would result in an estimated 191,700 MTCO2e in community emissions for 2030, or 3.3 MTCO2e per capita, which is an approximate 6 percent reduction compared to the 2017 levels, but above the 2030 target of 147,932 MTCO2e by 43,768 MTCO2e. The City’s GPU EIR determined that the City would not meet the WRCOG’s 2030 or 2050 community emissions target and would therefore have a potentially significant GHG impact.

The GPU EIR determined implementation of the GPU would not conflict with the implementation of CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan, which was in effect at the time the GPU was drafted. Additionally, as future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be evaluated for consistency with the current adopted Scoping Plan, as required under CEQA. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined impacts related to consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan would be less than significant. Additionally, the GPU EIR determined that the GPU would be consistent with the GHG reduction-related actions and strategies contained in the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). However, Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
91 the GPU would not meet the established reduction targets of SB 32 and AB 32, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact related to conflict with these plans.

In order to further reduce GHG emissions associated with buildout of the GPU, the City has included numerous policies and actions aimed at reducing GHG emissions and promoting sustainability in San Jacinto. While these policies and actions would further assist the City in reducing GHG emissions, the associated reduction of GHG emissions are not quantifiable. Because of this, the City cannot state with certainty whether implementation of the GPU would meet the 2030 and 2050 community emissions targets, and the GPU EIR determined that impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Project-Specific Impacts
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum for the proposed Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project, San Jacinto, California. LSA. August 2, 2024. Appendix A. • Subsequent Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Memorandum for the Required Storm Drain Improvements for the “Esplanade Collection” Project, San Jacinto. EPD Solutions, Inc. October 14, 2024.

Appendix B.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.8-18 through 5.8-37 and impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to occur over approximately 18 months, beginning the third quarter of 2025 and ending the third quarter of 2026.

GHG emissions associated with Project construction would consist primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. Long-term regional emissions would also be associated with new vehicular trips and stationerysource emissions (i.e., electricity usage for lighting). The calculations presented below include construction emissions in terms of annual CO2e GHG emissions from increased energy consumption, water usage, and solid waste disposal, as well as estimated GHG emissions from vehicular traffic that would result from implementation of the proposed Project. During construction of the proposed Project, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment, as well as emissions from worker and vendor vehicles, each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.

During operations, the proposed Project would generate long-term GHG emissions from vehicular trips; water and electricity consumption; and solid waste generation. Mobile-source emissions of GHGs would include Project generated vehicle trips associated with the residential uses. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping. Increases in stationary source emissions would also occur at off-site utility providers as a result of demand for electricity and water by the proposed use.

The SCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction related GHG emissions.

However, lead agencies are required to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction. Total estimated construction related GHG emissions from construction of the proposed Project were amortized over 30 years per SCAQMD methodology. As shown in Table GHG-1, it is estimated that the proposed Project would generate approximately 1,427.2 metric tons of carbon dioxide (MTCO2e) total emissions during construction. When annualized over the 30-year life of the proposed Project, annual emissions would be 47.6 MT CO2e.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
92 Table GHG-1: Project Construction GHG Emissions
Activity
Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Total Emissions 1,427.2
Total Emissions Amortized Over
30 Years 47.6
Source: Air Quality, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum (Appendix A); Table 5, Subsequent Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Memorandum for the Required Storm Drain Improvements for the “Esplanade Collection” Project, San Jacinto (Appendix B).

Operation of the proposed residences would result in area and indirect sources of operational GHG emissions that would primarily result from vehicle trips, area sources (e.g., maintenance activities and landscaping), indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption, waste sources (land filling and waste disposal), and water sources (water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution). GHG emissions from electricity consumed by the residences would be generated off-site by fuel combustion at the electricity provider. GHG emissions from water transport are also indirect emissions resulting from the energy required to transport water from its source.

As shown in Table GHG-2, the Project would generate approximately 3,508.0 MTCO2e per year, which would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land use types. Thus, GHG emissions from construction and operation of the proposed residences would be potentially significant.

Therefore, the following discussion compares the proposed Project to the 2035 efficiency-based target threshold.

Table GHG-2: Project Total GHG Emissions
Emission Type
Operational Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Percentage of
Total
Mobile Source 2,774.1 0.1 0.1 2,822.8 80
Area Source 5.6 <0.1 <0.1 5.6 <1
Energy Source 574.7 <0.1 <0.1 576.9 16
Water Source 20.9 0.3 <0.1 31.5 1
Waste Source 20.3 2.0 0.0 71.2 2
Total Operational Emissions 3,508.0 100.0
Amortized Construction Emissions 47.6 -
Total Annual Emissions 3,555.6 -
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000 -
Exceedance? Yes -
Per Service Population Emissions 3.8 -
2035 Efficiency Target Threshold 3.0 -
Exceedance? Yes -
Source: Table J, Air Quality, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum (Appendix A); Table 5, Subsequent Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Memorandum for the Required Storm Drain Improvements for the “Esplanade Collection” Project, San Jacinto (Appendix B).

Based on the City’s 2021–2029 Housing Element, the average household size in San Jacinto is 3.71 persons per unit (City of San Jacinto, 2022a). Therefore, the total service population for the proposed Project would be 924 people (residents plus employees). As such, the proposed Project would result in a per-service population of 3.8 MT CO2e per year, which is above the SCAQMD’s 2035 target threshold of 3.0 MT CO2e per year per service population. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would have the potential to generate significant GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment. Consistent with General Plan Action RM-4o, which requires development projects to demonstrate consistency with SCAQMD’s The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
93 operational emission thresholds and implement measures if thresholds are not met, the Project has been designed to implement features to reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible (PDF GHG-1). PDF GHG-1 would require prior to the issuance of building permits, that the Project applicant provide documentation to the City of San Jacinto demonstrating implementation and compliance with the emission reduction measures that have been deemed applicable, feasible, and effective in reducing GHG emissions generated by the Project. Applicable mission reduction incorporated into the Project’s design include ensuring all appliances within the Project are energy star-rated appliances; ensuring all water fixtures within the Project are water efficient; ensuring all parking areas are wired for capability of future EV charging and include EV charging stations that exceed regulatory requirements; providing onsite solar/renewable energy for at least 25 percent of the required electricity demand from the Project; and ensuring the Project is designed to achieve energy-efficient buildings exceeding Title 24 standards by at least 10 percent. Table GHG-3 shows the Project’s estimated GHG emissions with implementation of PDF GHG-1.

As shown in Table GHG-3, with implementation of PDF GHG-1, the proposed Project would result in approximately 3,394.4 MT CO2e per year and a per-service population of 3.7 MT CO2e per year, which is above the SCAQMD’s thresholds. Implementation of PDF GHG-1 would reduce emissions to the extent feasible; however, emissions would continue to exceed the SCAQMD threshold. In addition, the majority of the GHG emissions (approximately 84 percent of both unmitigated and mitigated emissions) are associated with non-construction related mobile sources. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and federal standards, and the Project has no control over these standards.

Table GHG-3: GHG Emissions with Implementation of PDF GHG-1 Emission Type
Operational Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Percentage of
Total
Mobile Source 2,774.1 0.1 0.1 2,822.8 84
Area Source 5.6 <0.1 <0.1 5.6 <1
Energy Source 416.9 <0.1 <0.1 418.5 13
Water Source 19.0 0.3 <0.1 28.7 1
Waste Source 20.3 2.0 0.0 71.2 2
Total Operational Emissions 3,346.8 100.0
Amortized Construction Emissions 47.6 -
Total Annual Emissions 3,394.4 -
SCAQMD Threshold 3,000 -
Exceedance? Yes -
Per Service Population Emissions 3.7 -
2035 Efficiency Target Threshold 3.0 -
Exceedance? Yes -
Source: Table H, Air Quality, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum (Appendix A); Table 5, Subsequent Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Memorandum for the Required Storm Drain Improvements for the “Esplanade Collection” Project, San Jacinto (Appendix B).

As described previously, the City’s GPU EIR determined that the City would not meet the WRCOG’s 2030 or 2050 community emissions target and would therefore have a potentially significant GHG impact. In order to further reduce GHG emissions associated with buildout of the General Plan, the City included numerous policies and actions aimed at reducing GHG emissions and promoting sustainability in San Jacinto.

However, since the City would not reduce emissions to below the communitywide thresholds, the GPU EIR determined that buildout under the General Plan would not meet the 2030 and 2050 community emissions targets and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Operation of the proposed Project would exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds. However, since the proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and the findings of the GPU EIR, the proposed The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
94 Project would not lead to new or substantially more severe significant impacts associated with operational GHG emissions beyond those identified in the GPU EIR. Thus, no new or increased impacts would occur. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.8-37 through 5.8-41 and impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Western Riverside Council of Governments Subregional Climate Action Plan As described above, the City participates in the WRCOG Subregional CAP which provides participating jurisdictions with a framework for reducing their GHG emissions consistent with targets and mandates established by the State of California. However, as stated in the GPU EIR, the City is not planning to adopt the additional measures recommended in the WRCOG Subregional CAP, since they are not feasible and conflict with the other objectives of the GPU. However, Table GHG-4 lists local GHG reduction measures from the CAP and the proposed Project's consistency with each measure. As shown, the proposed Project would be generally consistent with applicable CAP measures.

Table GHG-4: Project Consistency with WRCOG Subregional CAP GHG Reduction Measures Measure Description Project Consistency
Energy
LE-1 Expand Local
Renewable Energy
Production
Increase solar PV installation on new and
existing buildings.

Consistent. The Project includes installation
of solar panels on the proposed residences.

LE-2 Community
Choice/Utility Renewable
Electricity
Expand participation in utility or
community choice renewable electricity
offerings
Not Applicable. This measure does not
apply to individual development projects.

LE-3 Improve Energy
Efficiency of Existing
Buildings
Reduce the use of electricity and natural
gas in existing buildings
Consistent. The Project includes installation
of energy efficient electric appliances
within the proposed residences.

LE-4 Building &
Appliance Electrification
New buildings: Increase the amount of
“all electric” new construction; Existing
buildings: replace the use of natural gas
with electricity
Consistent. The Project includes installation
of electric appliances within the proposed
residences.

LE-5 Traffic & Street
Light Upgrades
Replace traffic signals and street light
fixtures with LEDs or other high efficiency
bulbs
Not Applicable. This measure does not
apply to individual development projects.

LE-6 Shade Trees Increase the tree canopy/tree count Consistent. The Project includes installation approximately 70,179 SF of new drought
tolerant landscaping that requires low
water and maintenance.

Transportation
LT-1 Bicycle Infrastructure
Improvements
Expand bike facilities; Amend zoning
code to require large developments to
include bike parking
Not Applicable. This measure does not
apply to individual development projects.

LT-2 Pedestrian
Infrastructure
Improvements
Fill gaps in the pedestrian network
through construction of sidewalks,
crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian
signals, or pedestrian crossings
Consistent. The proposed Project would
provide pedestrian infrastructure such as
recreational facilities, sidewalks, and
private roadways, which would increase
connectivity to the surrounding
residential and commercial land uses.

LT-3 Carshare & Carpool
Programs
Increase the availability of car share
programs throughout the community,
including schools and workplaces
Not Applicable. This measure does not
apply to individual development projects.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
95 2022 Scoping Plan (GPU EIR determined Project consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan) The proposed Project would not interfere with the state’s implementation of Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 32’s target of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030; or AB 197 which provides additional direction to the CARB related to the adoption of strategies to reduce GHG Measure Description Project Consistency
LT-4 Parking Pricing &
Limited Requirements
Amend zoning code to limit parking at
residential and commercial
developments. Require designated
parking for carpool vehicles at new nonresidential development.

Not Applicable. The proposed Project
would not be requesting a zone
amendment to limit parking spaces;
however, the Project would be consistent
with the City’s parking requirements for
residential development.

LT-5 Increase Transit
Service & Frequency
Increase the number of fixed-route bus
corridors that have headways of 15
minutes or less
Not Applicable. This measure does not
apply to individual development projects.

LT-6 Traffic Signal
Coordination
Increase the number of coordinated
traffic signals for the city’s arterial
roads.

Not Applicable. This measure does not
apply to individual development projects.

LT-7 Increase Housing
Density
Modify the city’s zoning code and land
use plan to accommodate more
residential units.

Not Applicable. This measure does not
apply to individual development projects.

LT-8 Increase Land Use
Diversity
Modify the zoning code and Land Use
plan to accommodate more employees in
City; Plan for a mixed-use district or
Specific Plan area that incorporates
housing, office, retail, or school uses
Not Applicable. This measure does not
apply to individual development projects.

LT-9 Transit-Oriented
Development
Locate more new development within ½-
mile of high-quality transit
Not Applicable. The Project is not located
within ½-mile of high-quality transit.

LT-10 Local ZEV
Programs
Install new EV charging stations at public
parking facilities; Amend zoning code to
require designated parking for EVs and
fuel-efficient vehicles at new
nonresidential development
Not Applicable. This measure does not
apply to the proposed Project.

LT-11 Subsidized Transit Provide subsidized or discounted transit passes to residents, students, and
employees living, working, or going to
school in the community.

Not Applicable. This measure does not
apply to the proposed Project.

Solid Waste, Water & Wastewater, and Agriculture
LS-1 Zero Waste
Initiatives
Increase the percent of organic waste
diverted from landfills Increase the total
waste diverted from landfills
Consistent. Construction of the project
would include a diversion of construction
waste from landfills to recycling consistent
with current local and State standards and
CAP goals to increase diversion and
reduction of waste.

LW-1 Increased
Recycled Water Use
Increase the volume of recycled water
used to irrigate parks, golf courses
outdoor landscaping
Consistent. The proposed Project would be
consistent with the CAP goal of increasing
water and energy efficiency in new
buildings by complying with the latest
California Building Code (Title 24),
including the latest CALGreen Code
Standards.

LA-1 Local Agriculture &
Community Gardens
Increase the number of local community
gardens and farmer’s markets Increase
the use of locally produced compost in
community gardens and local agriculture
Not Appliable. The proposed Project does
not include a community garden.

Source: WRCOG, 2022
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
96 emissions. CARB’s Updated Scoping Plan reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order S-3-05, and codified by AB 32. The 2022 Scoping Plan also focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality including transitioning away from fossil fuels by adding four times the solar and wind capacity by 2045 and about 1,700 times the amount of current hydrogen supply.

In addition, the Project does not conflict with the following related regulations:
• Pavley emissions standard and Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Pavley emissions standards (AB 2493) apply to all new passenger vehicles and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard regulates the transportation fuel used. The Advanced Clean Car program, which is implemented by the Pavley requirements combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025. The regulation will reduce GHGs from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025. The Project is consistent with these requirements as they apply to all new passenger vehicles and vehicle fuel purchased in California. • Energy Efficiency – Title 24/CalGreen Code: The Project is subject to the CalGreen Code Title 24 building energy efficiency requirements reduce energy consumption. Compliance with the CalGreen standards would be verified by the City during the building permitting process. The proposed Project would also include solar ready roofs in each residential unit consistent with the 2022 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
• Water Efficiency and Waste Diversion: Development and operation of the Project would be implemented in consistency with water conservation requirements (as included in Title 24) and solid waste recycling and landfill diversion requirements of the State. The Project would also include drought tolerant plants and low water use landscape and would be required comply with the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The goal of the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS is to improve the existing transportation system through design management strategies, integrate land use decisions and technological advancements, create complete streets that are safe to all roadway users, preserve the transportation system, and expand transit and foster development in transit-oriented communities via transportation projects. Cities are not required to be consistent with the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS but are provided incentives for consistency. Implementing SCAG’s RTP/SCS is anticipated to contribute to the reduction of regional GHG emissions from transportation, helping to achieve statewide emissions reduction targets.

The Project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s GHG reduction target of 19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035 and is not considered regionally significant (Appendix A). Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 the Project does not meet the criteria of a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units which would deem it regionally significant. As such, the Project would not conflict with the SCAG RTP/SCS targets since those targets were established and are applicable on a regional level. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the SCAG RTP/SCS targets or interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS.

Overall, the proposed Project would not result in a conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR and would not result in new impacts related to conflicts with regulations related to reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
97 2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

4. Consistent with General Plan Action RM-4o, PDF GHG-1 would be implemented to ensure that best practices for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are implemented. However, even with implementation of PDF GHG-1, Project specific impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, consistent with the GPU EIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None applicable to this Project.

GPU Goals, Policies & Actions
Applicable GPU policies and actions related to greenhouse gases include the following:

Land Use Element
Policy LU-1.1: Land Use Pattern. Promote an appropriate land use plan that fosters and enhances community livability and public health; sustains economic vitality; promotes efficient development and multiple transportation options; reduces pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and the expenditure of energy and other resources; and ensures compatibility between uses consistent with the land use designations identified in this Element and Land Use Map (LU-2).

1. Air pollutant emissions associated with the project during construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions.

2. Potential exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants.

3. Significant air quality impacts associated with the project for construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions.

4. Mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to less than significant or the maximum extent feasible where impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant.

Action RM-4n: Future development projects implemented under the General Plan will be required to demonstrate consistency with SCAQMD construction emission thresholds. Where emissions from individual projects exceed SCAQMD thresholds, the following actions shall be incorporated as necessary to minimize impacts. These measures do not exclude the use of other, equally effective mitigation measures. • Require all off-road diesel equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) used for this Project to meet USEPA Tier 4 final off-road emission standards or equivalent. Such equipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices including a California Air Resources The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
98 Board Certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) or equivalent. The DPF reduces diesel particulate matter and NOx emissions during construction activities. • Require a minimum of 50 percent of construction debris be diverted for recycling. • Require building materials to contain a minimum 10 percent recycled content. • Require materials such as paints, primers, sealants, coatings, and glues to have a low volatile organic compound concentration compared to conventional products. If low VOC materials are not available, architectural coating phasing should be extended sufficiently to reduce the daily emissions of VOCs.

Action RM-4o: Future development projects will be required to demonstrate consistency with SCAQMD’s operational emission thresholds. For projects where operational emissions exceed regulatory thresholds, the following measures may be used to reduce impacts. Note the following measures are not all inclusive and developers have the option to add or substitute measures that are equally or more appropriate for the scope of the project.
• Develop a project specific TDM program for residents and/or employees that provides opportunities for carpool/vanpools.
• Provide onsite solar/renewable energy in excess of regulatory requirements. • Require that owners/tenants of non-residential or multi-family residential developments use architectural coatings that are 10 grams per liter or less when repainting/repairing properties. • Require dripless irrigation and irrigation sensor units that prevent watering during rain storms. • Ensure all parking areas are wired for capability of future EV charging and include EV charging stations that exceed regulatory requirements.

Project Design Feature
PDF GHG-1: Pursuant to General Plan Action RM-4o, prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of San Jacinto demonstrating implementation and compliance with the following emission reduction measures. Implementation of the following measures will be required prior to building permits and is considered to be applicable, feasible, and effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated by the project:
• All appliances within the project shall be energy star-rated appliances. • All water fixtures within the project shall be water efficient (toilets/urinals (1.5 gallons per minute [gpm] or less), showerheads (2.0 gpm or less), and faucets (1.28 gpm or less)). • Ensure all parking areas are wired for capability of future EV charging and include EV charging stations that exceed regulatory requirements.
• Provide onsite solar/renewable energy for at least 25 percent of the required electricity demand from the project.
• Ensure project is designed to achieve energy-efficient buildings exceeding Title 24 standards by at least 10 percent.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
99 5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Project
Peculiar
Impact that
is not
Substantially
Mitigated
by Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment?
e) For a Project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the Project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the Project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
100
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed hazards and hazardous materials impacts on pages 5.9-15 through 5.9-42. The GPU EIR determined implementation of the GPU would accommodate increased development which would result in an increase in the routine transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials in the City, potentially resulting in accidental releases. However, the use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials is regulated and monitored by local fire departments, Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs), California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA), and the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) consistent with the requirements of federal, State, and local regulations and policies. Additionally, facilities that store hazardous materials on-site are required to maintain a Hazardous Materials Business Plan in accordance with State regulations. In the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials, the local CUPA and emergency management agencies (e.g., police and fire) would respond. Further, all future projects allowed under the GPU would be required to comply with the provisions of federal, State, and local requirements related to hazardous materials. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be evaluated for potential impacts, specific to the project, associated with hazardous materials as required under CEQA. The GPU also includes policies and actions to address potential impacts associated with hazardous materials among other issues. Overall, the GPU EIR determined that compliance with the requirements of federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the use and storage of hazardous materials would ensure that risks resulting from the routine transportation, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes associated with implementation of the GPU would be less than significant.

The GPU EIR determined future development under the GPU could result in demolition to buildings built prior to the 1960s which may contain lead-based paint, asbestos containing materials (ACM) and/or other contaminants. However, compliance with existing regulations related to ACM and lead-based paint would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. The GPU EIR also determined that future development accommodated through the GPU could involve grading and excavation activities which could expose construction workers and the public to previously unknown hazardous substances present in the soil or groundwater. Additionally, the public could also be exposed to hazardous materials if new development or redevelopment were to be located on a current or historical hazardous material site. There are no known active cleanup sites within the City and there are no open leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites in the City. However, future development associated with the GPU would be reviewed at the project-level to determine whether any development sites are listed on a hazardous materials site. The GPU EIR determined that compliance with GPU goals, policies, and actions, and existing regulations would reduce potential impacts involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment as a result of on-site contamination to a less than significant level. The GPU EIR also determined that long-term operation activities associated with future new development under the GPU could result in upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Typical incidents that could occur due to the accidental release of hazardous materials include leaking underground storage tanks, spills during transport, inappropriate storage or use, and/or natural disasters. However, the GPU EIR determined that compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws related to the transport, storage, and handling of hazardous materials would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents, and impacts involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant.

The GPU EIR determined future development under the GPU could potentially emit or handle hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. CEQA Guidelines Section 15186, School Facilities, requires that school projects, as well as projects proposed to be located near schools, examine of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires?
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
101
potential health impacts resulting from exposure to hazardous materials, wastes, and substances.

Furthermore, permitting requirements for individual hazardous material handlers or emitters would require evaluation and notification where potential hazardous materials handling and emissions could occur in proximity to existing schools. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that implementation of the safety procedures and regulations mandated by applicable federal, State, and local laws and the GPU policies and actions would ensure that potential risks resulting from the routine transportation, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes in proximity to a school associated with implementation of the GPU would be less than significant.

The GPU EIR discusses that future development associated with implementation of the GPU would be evaluated at the project-level to determine whether any development sites are listed on a hazardous materials site. Any development activities occurring on documented hazardous materials sites would be required to undergo remediation and cleanup under the supervision of the DTSC and the Santa Ana RWQCB prior to construction. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that compliance with GPU goals, policies, and actions, and existing regulations would reduce potential impacts involving the hazardous materials sites.

The GPU EIR determined implementation of the GPU would not result in safety hazards related to airports because there are no airports within the City and the City is not located within any Airport Land Use Plans.

As part of the site plan and design review process (SJDC Chapter 17.630), future development projects under the GPU would be reviewed for adequate infrastructure and access as well as consistency with adopted emergency and evacuation plans among many other environmental issues in order to ensure the safety of City residents and the physical environment. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined impacts associated with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans would be less than significant.

Future development allowed under the GPU would be required to comply with the provisions of federal, State, and local requirements related to wildland fire hazards, including State fire safety regulations associated with wildland-urban interfaces, fire-safe building standards, and defensible space requirements.

As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be evaluated for potential impacts, specific to the project, associated with wildland fire hazards as required under CEQA. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined through compliance with existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations related to wildland fire hazards and implementation of the GPU goals, policies, and actions, impact regarding the exposure of people or structures to significant loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
This section is based on the following report:
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared March 23, 2023, by AES Due Diligence, Inc. (AES, 2023), and included as Appendix G.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.9-15 through 5.9-21 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

A hazardous material is defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that a business or the local implementing agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
102
to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal because of their potential to damage public health and the environment.

Construction
Construction activities for the proposed Project would involve routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and calking. In addition, routine hazardous materials would be used for fueling and serving construction equipment onsite. These types of hazardous materials routinely used during construction are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by existing state and federal laws that the Project is required to strictly adhere to. As a result, the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities for the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Operation
The Project involves the operation of 249 new residential units, which involve routinely using hazardous materials including solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and aerosol cans. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous and would only be used and stored in limited quantities. The normal routine use of these hazardous materials products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to people or the environment in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, operation of the Project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste, and impacts would be less than significant. Further, GPU Policy PS-4.1 would ensure that Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) enforces the Uniform Fire Code relating to the use of hazardous materials and ensure that appropriate regulations are followed, and precautions are taken for the type and amount of hazard being created. Additionally, GPU Action PS-4d protects the community from hazards related to air pollution, hazardous materials, and ground and air transportation by requiring feasible mitigation to be incorporated into new development and redevelopment proposals to address safety impacts associated with those proposals. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and buildout of the proposed Project would result in no new impact.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.9-21 through 5.9-28 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

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

Construction
As described previously, construction of the proposed Project would involve the limited use and disposal of hazardous materials. Equipment that would be used in construction of the Project has the potential to release gas, oils, greases, solvents; and spills of paint and other finishing substances. However, the amount of hazardous materials onsite would be limited, and construction activities would be required to adhere to all applicable regulations regarding hazardous materials storage and handling, as well as to implement construction BMPs (through implementation of a required SWPPP implemented by DP/S HYD-1) to prevent The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
103
a hazardous materials release and to promptly contain and clean up any spills, which would minimize the potential for harmful exposures. With compliance to existing laws and regulations, which is mandated by the City through construction permitting, the Project’s construction-related impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
As described previously, operation of the proposed 249 residential units includes use of limited hazardous materials, such as solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, fertilizers, and aerosol cans. Normal routine use of typical residential products pursuant to existing regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment, residents, or workers in the vicinity of the Project. As a result, operation of the proposed Project would not create a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR, and the Project would result in no new impact.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.9-28 through 5.9-31 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

The closest schools to the Project site are Hyatt Elementary School, located approximately 0.5 mile to the north, and Park Hill Elementary School, located approximately 0.5 mile to the east. Therefore, there are no schools located within a 0.25 mile of the Project site. However, as described previously, construction and operation of the Project would involve the use, storage, and disposal of small amounts of hazardous materials on the Project site. These hazardous materials would be limited and used and disposed of in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, which would reduce the potential for accidental release into the environment near a school. Further, emissions that would be generated from construction and operation of the proposed Project were evaluated in the air quality analysis in Section 5.3, Air Quality, herein, which determined that emissions generated from the proposed Project would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the federal or state air quality standards. Thus, the Project would not emit hazardous or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of a school, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR, and the Project would result in no new or increased impact. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.9-32 through 5.9-33 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

As mentioned previously, a Phase I ESA (Appendix G) was prepared for the Project site, which included a database search to determine if the Project site or any nearby properties were identified as having hazardous materials. The Phase I ESA record search determined that the Project site is not identified on a list of hazardous materials sites. In addition, the Phase I ESA determined that none of the adjacent and nearby properties were identified on a list of hazardous materials. As a result, impacts related to hazards from being located on or adjacent to a hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR, and the Project would result in no new impact.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
104
e) For a Project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.9-34 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

The closest airport to the Project site is Hemet-Ryan Airport, which is located approximately four miles to the southwest. The Project site is not within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Hemet-Ryan Airport, as demonstrated in GPU EIR Figure 5.9-1, Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in an airport-related safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. The Project would have no impact on safety hazards related to airports. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR, and the Project would result in no new impact. f) Impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.9-34 through 5.9-38 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The installation of driveways and connections to existing infrastructure systems that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project could require the temporary closure of one side or portions of Esplanade Avenue, Hewitt Street, and Commonwealth Avenue (i.e., hours or a few days). However, the construction activities would be required to ensure emergency access in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which would be ensured through the City’s permitting process. Thus, implementation of the Project through the City’s permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would reduce potential construction related emergency access impacts to a less than significant level. Thus, impacts related to inadequate emergency access during construction activities would not occur.

Operation
Operation of the proposed Project would not result in a physical interference with an emergency response evacuation. Direct access to the Project site would be provided from two driveways, one on Esplanade Avenue and one on Commonwealth Avenue. The Project is also required to design and construct internal access and provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) in conformance with the SJMC Code and the RCFD prior to approval to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9) and the Fire Code included per SJMC Chapter 8.16. As a result, the proposed Project, including the buildout of the two driveways, would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, GPU Policy PS-5.1 ensures the provision of sufficient levels of all emergency response services to protect the health, safety, and welfare of all persons and to protect property in the City. Further, GPU Policy PS-5.2 supports the development of local preparedness plans and multi-jurisdictional cooperation and communication agreements for emergency situations. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new impact. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
105
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.9-38 through 5.9-42 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

According to the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone map, and GPU EIR Figure 5.20-1, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, the Project site not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (CAL FIRE, 2024; City of San Jacinto, July 2022). Additionally, the Project site is located in a developed area and is not adjacent to wildlands. Implementation of the proposed Project would be required to adhere to the California Fire Code and would be reviewed by the City’s Building and Safety Division during the permitting process to ensure that the Project plans meet the general applicable adopted fire protection requirements. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR and would result in a less than significant impact related to wildfires, and no new impacts would occur.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU EIR would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

GPU Goals, Policies & Actions
Applicable GPU policies and actions related to hazards and hazardous materials include the following:

Public Safety Element
Goal PS-4: Hazardous Materials and Waste. A community that is protected from the potential for hazardous waste and materials contamination.

Policy PS-4.1: Regulations. Ensure that RCFD enforces the Uniform Fire Code relating to the use of hazardous materials and ensure that appropriate regulations are followed, and precautions are taken for the type and amount of hazard being created.

Policy PS-4.4: Transportation. Promote the routing of vehicles carrying potentially hazardous materials to transportation corridors posing the minimum risk to the public.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
106
Policy PS-4.5: Household Hazardous Waste. Reduce the per capita production of household hazardous waste in San Jacinto in concert with the County of Riverside plans for reducing hazardous waste.

Action PS-4a: As part of the development review process, require projects that result in significant risks associated with hazardous materials to include measures to address the risks and reduce the risks to an acceptable level.

Action PS-4b: Require the submittal of information regarding hazardous materials manufacturing, storage, use, transport, and/or disposal by existing and proposed businesses and developments to RCFD.

Action PS-4c: Promote off-site hazardous materials and/or electronic waste drop-off.

Action PS-4d: Protect the community from hazards related to air pollution, hazardous materials, and ground and air transportation by requiring feasible mitigation to be incorporated into new development and redevelopment proposals to address safety impacts associated with those proposals.

Action PS-4f: Minimize public health risks and environmental risks from the use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials.

Action PS-4i: Amend the Municipal Code to require that, prior to issuance of any grading or building permit (whichever occurs first) for a project on a site identified on any list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, a formal Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be prepared in accordance with ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-05 or the Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) and submitted to the City’s Community Development Department. The Phase I ESA shall identify specific Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), which may require further sampling/remedial activities by a qualified Hazardous Materials Specialist with Phase II/site characterization experience prior to demolition, and/or construction. The Hazardous Materials Specialist shall identify proper remedial activities appropriate to the hazardous material(s) found (e.g., removal and disposal; bio-remediation; pump and treat; soil vapor extraction, and in situ oxidation), as necessary.

Resource Management Element
Policy RM-10.3: Hazardous Waste. Promote the proper disposal of hazardous waste, including paint, tires, medications, medical sharps, infectious waste, asbestos waste, construction waste, and electronic waste, through education, monitoring, and enforcement of proper use, storage, handling, and disposal.

Action RM-10a: On an ongoing basis and in compliance with State law, ensure solid waste collection activities completed by franchise solid waste haulers, facility siting and construction of transfer and/or disposal facilities, operation of waste reduction and recycling programs, and household hazardous waste disposal and education programs are consistent with the County Solid Waste Management Plan.

Action RM-10c: Encourage the expansion of recycling, reuse, and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials, including the following:
• Increased participation in single family and multifamily residential curbside recycling programs; • Increased participation in commercial and industrial recycling programs for paper, cardboard, and plastics;
• Reduce yard and landscaping waste through methods such as composting, grass recycling, and using resource efficient landscaping techniques; and
• Encourage local businesses to provide electronic waste (e-waste) drop-off services and encourage residents and businesses to properly dispose of, or recycle, e-waste.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None applicable to this Project.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
107

5.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Project
Peculiar
Impact that
is not
Substantiall
y Mitigated
by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
Project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
Project inundation?
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
108
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed impacts related to hydrology and water quality on pages 5.10-16 through 5.10-48.

The GPU EIR determined grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with future construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Additionally, the GPU EIR determined future construction activities could also result in soil compaction and wind erosion impacts which could reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas. However, the GPU EIR states, future projects carried out under the GPU must include detailed project specific drainage plans that control storm water runoff and erosion, both during and after construction. The RWQCB would require a project-specific SWPPP to be prepared for each future project that disturbs an area one acre or larger. The SWPPPs would include project-specific best management practices (BMPs) that are designed to control drainage and erosion during construction. Additionally, pursuant to the Riverside County MS4 Permit and SJMC Section 17.600.100, qualifying new development and redevelopment projects are required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) or similar demonstration of post-construction BMPs to mitigate downstream impacts to flooding and water quality. Further, the GPU Public Safety Element and Resource Management Element includes goals, policies, and actions to address water quality associated with development. Overall, the GPU EIR determined implementation of the GPU policies and actions, implementation of the SJMC requirements, compliance with mandatory federal and State regulations, and compliance with the existing regulations for the San Jacinto River Watershed, future development projects associated with implementation of the GPU would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

The GPU EIR states that the City is underlain by the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin of the San Jacinto River Watershed and falls within the Hemet/San Jacinto Groundwater Management Area. The GPU EIR determined implementation and future buildout of the GPU would not significantly add to the volume of impervious surfaces in the City because only less than two percent of the land currently designated for open space would be redesignated for urban uses. Additionally, the GPU EIR determined there are adequate water supplies (including groundwater) to serve the projected buildout demand of the GPU. Therefore, impacts related to groundwater recharge would be less than significant. The GPU Public Safety Element and Resource Management Element also includes policies that support water conservation, groundwater management, and coordination with local water districts when planning for adequate capacity to accommodate future growth.

The GPU EIR determined implementation and buildout of the GPU could increase the area of impervious surfaces in the City and/or result in alteration of existing drainage patterns. However, through implementation of the GPU policies and existing regulations, erosion/siltation impacts from changes to the existing drainage patterns and increasing impervious surfaces would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Additionally, the GPU EIR determined future development under the GPU has the potential to result in changes to the existing drainage patterns and could exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage systems and/or cause flooding on- or off-site of a project. However, through implementation of the GPU goals, policies, and actions and existing federal, State, and local regulations, runoff would not exceed the capacity of drainage systems, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or cause flooding impacts from changes to the existing drainage patterns and increased impervious surfaces.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Further, the GPU EIR determined several portions of the City and City Sphere of Influence are subject to the 100-year flood and a small portion of the City is located within a mapped portion of the 500-year FEMA flood zone. However, The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
109
with implementation of GPU goals, policies, and implementation and compliance with existing regulations, the GPU would not impede or redirect flood flows; impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

The GPU EIR notes San Jacinto has the potential to be inundated during failure of one or more dams.

However, the EIR determined with implementation of GPU goals, policies, and implementation and compliance with existing regulations, impacts associated with the risk of pollutants from seiches and flooding that may result from adoption and implementation of the GPU would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. The GPU EIR also notes that the City is approximately 41 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean; therefore, risk of tsunami is not likely.

The GPU EIR also determined that through implementation of existing regulations and the GPU policies and actions, implementation of the GPU would not conflict or obstruct a water quality control plan. Further, the GPU would not conflict with implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan because future development projects accommodated by the GPU would be subject to the Judgment and Groundwater Sustainability Plan and would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

Project-Specific Impacts
This section is based on the following reports:
• Preliminary Hydrology Report for TTM 38872 San Jacinto, CA, prepared December 27, 2023, by Robert M. Beers (Beers, 2023), and included as Appendix H. • Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, prepared January 16, 2024, by Blaine A. Wormer Civil Engineering (Blaine A. Wormer Civil Engineering, 2024), and included as Appendix I. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
No New Impact.

Construction
This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.10-16 through 5.10-19 and was determined to have a less than significant impact with compliance of federal, State, city and San Jacinto River Watershed regulations as well as implementation of GPU policies and actions.

Construction
Construction of the Project would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen sediment, and have the potential to mix with surface water runoff and degrade water quality. Pollutants of concern during Project construction include sediments, trash, petroleum products, concrete waste (dry and wet), sanitary waste, and chemicals. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and transport of sediment downstream compared to existing conditions. During a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. In addition, constructionrelated pollutants, such as chemicals, liquid, and petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste, could be spilled, leaked, or transported via stormwater runoff into adjacent drainages and into downstream receiving waters.

These types of water quality impacts during construction of the Project would be prevented through implementation of a SWPPP, as required by the NPDES permit and SJMC Section 17.600.100, to identify all potential sources of pollution that are reasonably expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges from the construction site. Construction of the Project would disturb more than one acre of soil; The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
110
therefore, the proposed Project would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and ground disturbances such as trenching, stockpiling, or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires implementation of a SWPPP which is required to identify all potential sources of pollution that are reasonably expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges from the construction site. The SWPPP would generally contain a site map showing the construction perimeter, proposed buildings, stormwater collection and discharge points, general pre- and post-construction topography, drainage patterns across the site, and adjacent roadways. The SWPPP would also include construction BMPs. The SWPPP would include a combination of erosion control measures to reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from Project-related grading and construction activities, such as fiber rolls, fencing, and watering.

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

Operation
The proposed Project includes the operation of residential uses, which would introduce the potential for pollutants such as chemicals from cleaners, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles and trucks. These pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters and result in degradation of water quality. However, in compliance with the Riverside County MS4 Permit and SJMC Section 17.600.100, the proposed Project would be required to incorporate a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) with post-construction (or permanent) LID site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs.

The source control BMPs would minimize the introduction of pollutants that may result in water quality impacts; and treatment control BMPs that would treat stormwater runoff. The proposed landscaped areas would introduce planting media that would enhance the capability to store runoff on-site within the media. Some of the runoff would drain to nearby landscaping areas. In addition, as described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project would install drainage infrastructure that would direct runoff from the Project to drainage inlets and gutters that would convey runoff to an underground infiltration basin in the northwest portion of the site that would remove pollutants (i.e., sediments, nutrients, heavy metals, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria, and pesticides).

With implementation of the operational source and treatment control LID that are outlined in the Preliminary WQMP (Appendix I) that would be reviewed and approved by the City during the permitting and approval process, potential pollutants would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR and would result in no new or increased impact on water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.10-20 through 5.10-23 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

Groundwater recharge is facilitated by percolation of stormwater through pervious surface areas to groundwater resources. Increasing the imperviousness of an area could interfere with groundwater recharge capabilities of an area. The Project site is currently undeveloped and largely pervious. The Project would result in a greater area of impervious surface from the introduction of new building coverage and pavement.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
111
However, the Project would install drainage infrastructure that would convey runoff to an infiltration basin, which would percolate runoff into the groundwater basin and provide for basin recharge. In addition, the proposed Project includes approximately 94,306 SF of landscaping that would also provide stormwater infiltration onsite. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR and would result in no new or increased impact on groundwater supplies or recharge. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.10-24 through 5.10-28 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen sediment and could result in erosion or siltation. However, as described previously, construction of the proposed Project requires City approval of a SWPPP prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, pursuant to the SJMC Section 17.600.100. The SWPPP would include construction BMPs to reduce erosion or siltation and is required for plan check and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits for the Project. Typical BMPs for erosion or siltation, include use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, gravel bags, stabilized construction driveway, and stockpile management. Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the required BMPs per the permitting process would ensure that erosion and siltation associated with construction activities would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
During Project operation, the pervious areas of the site would be landscaped. Thus, implementation of the Project would not generate soils that could erode. Also, the proposed drainage infrastructure would slow, and the infiltration basins would retain stormwater, which would also limit the potential for erosion or siltation.

The Project is required to implement a WQMP pursuant to SJMC Section 17.600.100 (which has been prepared and is included as Appendix I) that describes how the Project would infiltrate, evapotranspire, or biotreat/biofilter the 85th percentile 24-hour storm event. The Project would achieve this by the use of the drainage infrastructure and the infiltration basin that has been designed to meet the drainage needs of the proposed Project. As a result, stormwater runoff and the potential for erosion and siltation would not increase with implementation of the proposed Project, and no new impacts would result. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new impact.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.10-24 through 5.10-28 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

As described in the previous responses, the proposed Project would be required to implement a SWPPP during construction that would implement BMPs, such as the use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, and gravel bags, that would ensure that runoff would not substantially increase during construction, and flooding on or off-site would not occur. Impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would increase the paved, impervious area onsite and increase surface runoff from those areas of the site. However, as described above, the Project would implement an operational WQMP that would install an onsite storm drain system and an infiltration basin that would infiltrate, evapotranspire, The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
112
or biotreat/biofilter the 85th percentile 24-hour storm event, as required by the Santa Ana RWQCB regulations. Thus, the Project would not substantially increase stormwater runoff, and flooding on or off-site would not occur. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR and would result in no new or increased impact related to flooding on- or off-site. iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.10-24 through 5.10-28 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

As described in the previous responses, the proposed Project would be required to implement a SWPPP during construction that would implement BMPs, such as the use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, and gravel bags, that would ensure that runoff would not substantially increase during construction, and that pollutants would not discharge from the Project site, which would reduce potential impacts to drainage systems and water quality to a less than significant level.

Also, the Project would implement an operational WQMP that would install an onsite storm drain system and an infiltration basin, that would infiltrate, evapotranspire, or biotreat/biofilter the 85th percentile 24-hour storm event, as required by the Santa Ana RWQCB regulations. In addition, the Project includes installation of a 24-inch diameter storm drain line in Esplanade Avenue that would extend 1,300 linear feet to the west to convey stormflows to the RCFCD storm drain Line F in San Jacinto Avenue. Thus, operation of the proposed Project would not substantially increase stormwater runoff, and pollutants would be filtered onsite. Impacts related to drainage systems and polluted runoff would be less than significant with implementation of the existing requirements, which would be verified during the permitting process. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR, and the Project would result in no new or increased impacts.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.10-24 through 5.10-28 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the Project area (06065C1490H), the Project site is not located with a flood hazard area (FEMA, 2017).

Additionally, the Project would install an onsite storm drain system and an infiltration basin, that would have the capacity for the 85th percentile 24-hour storm event, as required by the Santa Ana RWQCB regulations.

In addition, the Project includes installation of a 24-inch diameter storm drain line in Esplanade Avenue that would extend 1,300 linear feet to the west to convey stormflows in a storm drain via the existing flow of stormwater to the RCFCD storm drain Line F in San Jacinto Avenue. Further, the Project-specific Hydrology Report (included as Appendix H) analyzed the 2, 10, and 100-year storm events and determined the Project’s proposed storm drain infrastructure would sufficiently capture each storm event. Thus, the proposed Project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and the Project would result in no new impact related to flood flows. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new or increased impacts. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.10-28 through 5.10-32 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

As discussed above, the Project site is not within a flood zone and a SWPPP would be prepared and implemented as part of the Project to ensure pollutants are contained and would not be released from the Project site during construction. Post construction stormwater infrastructure would ensure capture and The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
113
treatment of storm flows up to the 85th percentile 24-hour storm event through implementation of a WQMP.

Therefore, implementation of the Project would not risk the release of pollutants due to Project inundation in a flood hazard zone.

Tsunamis are tidal waves generally caused by earthquakes, sea floor landslides, rock falls, and exploding volcanic islands. The Project site is approximately 45 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean shoreline. Based on the inland location of the site, the Project site is not within a tsunami zone.

A seiche is the sloshing of a closed body of water from earthquake shaking. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water. The nearest body of water to the Project site is Diamond Valley Lake, approximately five miles to the southwest.

According to GPU EIR Figure 5.10-5, Dam Inundation Map, the Project site is not within the inundation area of Diamond Valley Lake.

Overall, impacts would be less than significant, and the Project would result in no new impact related to release of pollutants due to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.10-32 through 5.10-36 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

As described previously, the Project would be required to have an approved SWPPP, which would include construction BMPs to minimize the potential for construction related sources of pollution. For operations, the proposed Project would be required to implement source control BMPs to minimize the introduction of pollutants; and treatment control BMPs to treat runoff. With implementation of the operational source and treatment control BMPs that would be required by the City during the permitting and approval process, potential pollutants would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and implementation of the proposed Project would not obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

The Project site is underlain by the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin. Pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA), the San Jacinto Basin was designated a high-priority basin in the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) 2019 SGMA Basin Prioritization report. In compliance with SGMA, the Hemet-San Jacinto Watermaster submits its Annual Report to the DWR and is required to maintain a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the basin, prepared a GSP which was approved by DWR in 2023. The GSP documents basin conditions and ongoing basin management practices to maintain sustainability. As further discussed in Section 5.19, Utilities & Service Systems, the water demand for the Project would be within projected demand of the EMWD. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact and would not obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR and would result in no new or increased impacts.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Hydrology and Water Quality, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
114

4. Applicable policies and actions within the GPU would be applied to the Project. These policies, detailed below ensure compliance with federal and local regulations and standards related to the protection of water quality. Project specific impacts are less than significant.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) DP/S HYD-1: Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The Project will be constructed in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with the Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No 2009- 0009- DWQ (as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ), NPDES No. CAS000002 (or the latest approved Construction General Permit). Compliance requires filing a Notice of Intent (NOI); a Risk Assessment; a Site Map; a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and associated Best Management Practices (BMPs); an annual fee; and a signed certification statement.

DP/S HYD-2 Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 Permit. The Project will be operated in accordance with the Riverside County MS4 Permit (Order Number R8-2010-0033) and NPDES Permit No. CAS618033. The MS4 Permit requires new development and redevelopment projects to adopt a WQMP to:
• Control contaminants into storm drain systems
• Educate the public about stormwater impacts
• Detect and eliminate illicit discharges
• Control runoff from construction sites
• Implement BMPs and site-specific runoff controls and treatments GPU Goals, Policies & Actions/Standards
Applicable GPU policies and actions related to hydrology and water quality include the following:

Action RM-2a: To reduce soil erosion and pollutants in urban runoff, require new development and redevelopment projects control stormwater runoff through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. Existing development shall control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. As specific development projects are implemented, project proponents will be required to consult with relevant agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Also, ensure that projects of one acre or more complete a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Santa Ana Region – Order No. 00-65 and the City’s MS4 permit (order no. R8-2002-0011 (NPDES No. CAS 618033).

Action PS-3b: Review projects for project-related flood control and stormwater management impacts to ensure that all proposed development comply with the City’s MS4 permit.

Policy PS-3.6: Building Codes. Adhere to the latest building, site, and design codes in the California Building Code and FEMA flood control guidelines to avoid or minimize the risk of flooding hazards in the community.

Policy PS-3.7: Stormwater Runoff. Encourage new developments that add impervious surfaces to integrate low impact development best management practices to reduce stormwater runoff.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
115

5.11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Project
Peculiar
Impact that
is not
Substantiall
y Mitigated
by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed land use and planning‐related impacts on pages 5.11-11 through 5.11-30. The GPU EIR determined that the GPU Land Use Map designates sites for a range of urban and rural developed uses as well as open space, but it does not include any new areas designated for urbanization or new roadways, infrastructure, or other features that would divide existing communities. The GPU Land Use Element also includes policies and actions to support cohesive development that would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that the GPU would have a less than significant impact associated with the physical division of an established community. The GPU EIR also determined that implementation of the GPU would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect and impacts would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.11-11 and was determined to have a less than significant impact. The physical division of an established community could occur if a major road (expressway or freeway, for example) were built through an existing community or neighborhood, or if a major development was built which was inconsistent with the land uses in the community such that it divided the community. The environmental effects caused by such a facility or land use could include lack of, or disruption of, access to services, schools, or shopping areas. It might also include the creation of blighted buildings or areas due to the division of the community.

The Project site is currently undeveloped and vacant. The Project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site and adjacent areas, which are designated and consist of residential and retail commercial uses. The proposed residential uses would add to the existing community and would not physically divide the community. In addition, the Project does not involve development of offsite roadways or other infrastructure that could divide a community. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
116
implementation of the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community, and the Project would result in no new or increased impacts related to dividing an established community. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.11-13 and was determined to be less than significant. The Project site has an existing land use designation of Mixed Use and a zoning designation of MU. The Mixed Use land use designation provides opportunities for mixtures of commercial, office, and residential uses in the same building, on the same parcel of land, or within the same area. The MU zoning district allows for a variety of residential developments including single-use projects comprised of only singlefamily residences at densities between 10 and 36 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed Project would include 249 single-family residences, which would result in a density of 10.57 du/ac. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations of the Project site.

The Project would also be consistent with the SCAG 2024-2050 RTP/SCS which identifies land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas served by high-quality transit and other opportunity areas would be consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network. As described in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project does not meet the definition of a project of State-wide, regional, or area-wide significance per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15205.b.2. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the SCAG RTP/SCS GHG reduction targets because those targets were established and are applicable on a regional level. The Project does not involve conflict with any other land use related policy, as detailed throughout this CEQA Streamlining checklist, and impacts related to conflict with a policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would not occur. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR, and the Project would result in no new impact.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Land Use and Planning, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None applicable to this Project.

GPU Goals, Policies & Actions
Applicable GPU policies and actions related to land use include the following:

Land Use Element
Policy LU-2.2: Infill Development. Encourage new development to occur in infill locations in a balanced and efficient pattern that reduces sprawl, preserves open space, and creates convenient connections to other land uses and activity centers.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
117
Policy LU-3.1: Surrounding Uses. Consider as part of the development review process the compatibility of new development with surrounding uses and the ability of new development to enhance the character of the surrounding area.

Policy LU-3.2: Residential Uses. Require that new residential development be designed to protect residents from potential conflicts with adjacent land uses, and other features including rail corridors, and high-volume roadways.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None applicable to this Project.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
118

5.12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Project
Peculiar
Impact that
is not
Substantiall
y Mitigated
by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) 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?
b) 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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed impacts to mineral resources on pages 5.12-3 through 5.12-4. The GPU EIR determined that the City has no known or identified mineral resources of regional or Statewide importance.

Additionally, the GPU Resource Management Element includes policies and actions to protect mineral resources associated with mining activities. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined impacts related to mineral resources would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a) 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?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated on page 5.12-3 of the GPU EIR. As shown in GPU EIR Figure

5.12-1, Mineral Resource Zones, the Project site is identified as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), which is defined as an area containing known or inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. However, according to the GPU EIR, there are no known mineral deposits or resources in the City or the City’s sphere of influence that are of significant value to the region or the State. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, the Project would result in no new or increased impacts to mineral resources.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated on page 5.12-3 of the GPU EIR. According to the GPU EIR, there are no locally important mineral resource recovery sites within the City limits or the City’s Sphere of Influence.

Therefore, consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan, specific plan or other land use plan and the Project would result in no new impact to mineral resources.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
119
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Mineral Resources, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None applicable to this Project.

GPU Goals, Policies & Actions
None applicable to this Project.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None applicable to this Project.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
120

5.13. NOISE
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the Project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne noise
levels?
c) For a Project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the Project expose
people residing or working in the
Project area to excessive noise levels?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed noise and vibration impacts on pages 5.13-27 through 5.13-48. The GPU EIR determined that with implementation of the GPU, the primary noise source in the City would continue to be vehicle traffic. The GPU EIR determined the traffic noise increases associated with the GPU would exceed the applicable noise exposure criteria. The GPU incorporates policies and actions intended to minimize exposure to excessive noise, including noise associated with traffic. However, even with implementation of GPU policies and actions, traffic noise on existing noise-sensitive uses would remain significant and unavoidable. The GPU EIR determined noise impacts from stationary noise sources would be less than significant with the implementation of GPU policies and actions which are intended to reduce noise associated with stationary sources. Additionally, detailed noise studies outlining site specific noise control measures would be required for future land use projects proposed under the GPU which would further reduce the noise associated with stationary sources.

The GPU EIR determined implementation of the GPU would result in short-term noise impact associated with construction activities. Short-term noise associated with construction would occur both off-site through construction crew commutes and transport of equipment and materials and on-site through grading and use of construction equipment. Short-term construction-related noise impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport would be a less than significant impact because the effect on ambient noise by passing The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
121
trucks would be less than 1 dBA when averaged over one hour or 24 hours which is not perceptible to human ears. Short-term noise impacts related to on-site construction activities were determined to result in a less than significant impact with implementation of the City’s noise element and GPU policies.

The GPU EIR determined that construction activities in the City have the potential to result in significant impacts related to groundborne vibration associated with construction activities. However, vibration related impacts would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the GPU Public Safety Element Action PS-6h, which limits vibration levels to 0.08 in/sec PPV for historical buildings and 0.3 in/sec PPV for contemporary buildings and requires vibration studies for new development projects that have the potential to generate vibration impacts which exceed the vibration limits.

The City is not located within any adopted airport land use plans, there are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the City, and there are no public airports located within two miles of the City. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined implementation of the GPU would result in no impacts related to private airports, public airports, airstrips, or adopted airport land use plans.

Project-Specific Impacts
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Noise Impact Analysis for the Esplanade Collection Residential Project, City of San Jacinto. Vista Environmental. August 19, 2024. Appendix J.

Existing Noise Levels
As detailed in the Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix J), to identify the existing ambient noise level environment, three long-term (24-hour) noise level measurements were taken at locations near the Project site. Figure N-1 shows the location of each noise measurement. Table N-1 presents a summary of the measured hourly noise levels and calculated community noise equivalent level (CNEL) from the long-term noise level measurements. As shown in Table N-1, noise levels around the Project site range from 68.0 dBA CNEL to 71.4 dBA CNEL. Hourly noise levels at surrounding sensitive uses are as low as 59.5 dBA Leq during nighttime hours and 65.6 dBA Leq during daytime hours.

Table N-1: Summary of Long-Term Ambient Noise Level Measurements Site
No. Site Description
Average (dBA Leq)
1-hr Average (dBA
Leq/Time)
Average3
(dBA
Daytime CNEL) 1 Nighttime2 Minimum Maximum
1 On a light post adjacent to west property
line of Project site, approximately 65 feet
south of Esplanade Avenue centerline.

68.1 60.8 54.3
2:48 a.m.

71.9 3:43 p.m. 69.8
2 On a sign post on east property line of
Project Site, approximately 30 feet west
of Hewitt Street centerline and aligned
with Yarrow Drive

65.6 59.5 54.1
1:37 a.m.

68.5 12:49 p.m. 68.0
3 On a power pole on south property line of
project site, approximately 35 feet north
of Commonwealth Avenue centerline and
260 feet east of the southwest property
corner

69.7 62.2 54.4
1:37 a.m.

73.9 4:42 p.m. 71.4
1 Daytime defined as 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (Section 8.40.040 of the Municipal Code) 2 Nighttime define as 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Section 8.40.040 of the Municipal Code) 3 The 24-hour average dBA CNEL is calculated by taking the hourly Leq values and adding a penalty of 4.77 dB during the evening hours of 7 to 10 pm and adding a 10 dB penalty during the nighttime hours of 10 pm to 7 am.

Noise measurements taken between Tuesday, January 30 and Wednesday, January 31, 2024.

Source: Table D, Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix J)
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
122
This page intentionally left blank.
1RLVH0HDVXUHPHQW/RFDWLRQV
7KH Esplanade &ROOHFWLRQ Figure
City of San Jacinto
1RLVH0HDVXUHPHQW/RFDWLRQV

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
124
This page intentionally left blank.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
125
City of San Jacinto Noise Standards
The San Jacinto General Plan requires development and infrastructure projects in the City to be consistent with the land use compatibility standards contained in Tables N-2, N-3, and N-4 below.

Table N-2: City of San Jacinto Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure from Mobile Sources Land Use
Noise Standards1
Exterior Interior
Residential – single-family, multi-family, duplex and mobile home 65 dB(A) 45 dB(A) Residential – transient lodging, hotels, motels, nursing homes, hospitals, assisted care facilities
65 dB(A) 45 dB(A)
Private offices, churches, libraries, theaters, concert halls, meeting halls, schools 65 dB(A) 45 dB(A) General commercial, office, retail, reception, restaurant 65 dB(A) 45 dB(A) Light industrial2 -- --
Parks and playgrounds3 65 dB(A) 50 dB(A)
Golf courses, outdoor spectator sports 70 dB(A) --
1 In Community Noise Level Equivalent (CNEL).
2 Noise standards do not apply to Light Industrial areas. 3 Outdoor environment limited to playground areas, picnic areas, and other areas of frequent human use.

Source: Table PS-2 from City of San Jacinto General Plan, 2022.

Table N-3: City of San Jacinto Allowable Exterior Noise Level Due to Stationary Noise Sources Type of Land Use
Allowed Equivalent Noise Level, dBA Leq1,2
7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.

All single-family residential properties 65 45
All multifamily residential properties, mobile home parks 65 50 All commercial property 65 60
The residential portion of mixed-use properties 70 70
All manufacturing and industrial properties, and all other uses 70 70 1 If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standards, the ambient noise level shall be the standard. 2 Measurements for compliance are made on the affected property pursuant to Section 8.40.160.

Source: Table PS-3 from City of San Jacinto General Plan, 2022.

Table N-4: City of San Jacinto Allowable Interior Noise Level Due to Stationary Noise Sources Type of Land Use
Allowed Equivalent Noise Level, dBA Leq1,2
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

All single-family residential properties 45 40
All multifamily residential properties and mobile home parks 45 40 All commercial properties 45 40
Residential portion of mixed use 45 40
1 If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standards, the ambient noise level shall be the standard. 2 Measurements for compliance are made on the affected property pursuant to Section 8.40.160.

Source: Table PS-4 from City of San Jacinto General Plan, 2022.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
126
City of San Jacinto Construction Noise Standards
Pursuant to SJMC Section 8.40.090, construction activities would be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. a) Generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.13-27 through 5.13-44 and was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact related to operational traffic noise increases and groundborne vibration from construction activities.

Construction
Construction of the Project is anticipated to last 18 months and would involve site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings. In addition, trenching, excavation, installation of the new storm drain, and paving activities would occur for 1,300 linear feet between the northwest corner of the site and the existing storm drain line F in San Jacinto Avenue. These activities would require use of heavy equipment that would increase noise levels in the immediate area. The noise from construction activity would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of construction equipment.

The Project construction noise would be temporary in nature as the operation of each piece of construction equipment would not be constant throughout the construction day, and equipment would be turned off when not in use. These predicted noise levels are conservative in nature and would only occur when all construction equipment is operating simultaneously.

Table N-5 below lists the construction equipment anticipated to be used for each phase of construction. noise levels based on a distance of 50 feet between equipment and a noise receptor. The noise levels shown in Table N-5 were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). As shown, noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 77 dBA to 84 dBA when measured at 50 feet.

Table N-5: Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Description
Number of
Equipment
Acoustical Use
Factor1 (percent)
Spec 721.560 Lmax at
50 feet2 (dBA, slow3)
Actual Measured Lmax
at 50 feet4 (dBA, slow3)
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 40 85 82
Backhoe 1 40 80 78
Front End Loader 1 40 80 79
Tractor 1 40 84 N/A
Grading
Excavators 2 40 85 81
Grader 1 40 85 83
Rubber Tired Dozer 1 40 85 82
Scrapers 2 40 85 84
Front End Loader 1 40 80 79
Tractor 1 40 84 N/A
Building Construction
Crane 1 16 85 81
Forklift (Gradall) 3 40 85 83
Generator 1 50 82 81
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
127
Equipment Description
Number of
Equipment
Acoustical Use
Factor1 (percent)
Spec 721.560 Lmax at
50 feet2 (dBA, slow3)
Actual Measured Lmax
at 50 feet4 (dBA, slow3)
Backhoe 1 40 80 78
Front End Loader 1 40 80 79
Tractor 1 40 84 N/A
Welder 1 40 73 74
Paving
Paver 2 50 85 77
Paving Equipment 2 50 85 77
Roller 2 20 85 80
Architectural Coating
Air Compressor 1 40 80 78
Notes:
1 Acoustical use factor is the percentage of time each piece of equipment is operational during a typical workday. 2 Spec 721.560 is the equipment noise level utilized by the RCNM program. 3 The “slow” response averages sound levels over 1-second increments. A “fast” response averages sound levels over 0.125-second increments.
4 Actual Measured is the average noise level measured of each piece of equipment during the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston, Massachusetts primarily during the 1990s.

Source: Table E, Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix J).

The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site is located at existing residence approximately 40 feet west from the southern boundary of the Project site, along East Commonwealth Avenue. Additionally, there are multi-family residences located as near as 110 feet north of the Project site and single-family residences located as near as 115 feet east of the Project site. Table N-6 below shows the nearest sensitive uses to the Project site, their distance from the center of construction activities, and composite noise levels expected during construction. These noise level projections include consideration for intervening topography or barriers.

Table N-6: Onsite Construction Noise Impacts at the Nearby Sensitive Receptors Construction Phase
Construction Noise Level (dBA Leq) at:

Homes to North1 Homes to East2 Homes to West3
Site Preparation 59 60 59
Grading 61 61 60
Building Construction 60 60 59
Paving 54 55 54
Painting 46 47 46
City Construction Noise Standard4 65 65 65
Exceed Thresholds? No No No 1 The multi-family residences to the north of the Project site are located as near as 650 feet from the center of Project site. 5 dB of shielding was added to RCNM in order to account for the existing 6-foot-high wall on the north side of Esplanade Avenue. 2 The single-family residences to the east of the Project site are located as near as 620 feet from the center of the Project site. 5 dB of shielding was added to RCNM in order to account for the existing 6-foot-high wall on the east side of Hewitt Street. 3 The residences to the west of the Project site are located as near as 680 feet from the center of the Project site. 5 dB of shielding was added to RCNM in order to account for the two existing 6-foot-high fences located between residences and Project site. 4 The City construction noise standard is an aspirational construction noise standard from General Plan Policy PS-6.7, since Section

8.40.090 of the City’s Municipal Code exempts construction noise during allowable hours of construction.

Source: Table J, Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix J)
As shown in Table N-6, the loudest noise would occur during the grading phase, with noise levels as high as 61 dBA Leq at the nearest residences to the north and east of the Project site. Construction-related noise levels from onsite activities would remain below the 65 dBA Leq City construction noise standard for residential uses and would be below the existing ambient noise levels identified in Table N-1. In addition, the closest sensitive receptors to the storm drain installation in Esplanade Avenue (between the northwest corner of the site and the existing storm drain line F in San Jacinto Avenue) would be approximately 80 feet The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
128
(the residences located north of Esplanade Avenue). The private exterior areas of these residential properties are set behind a 6-foot-high wall that would attenuate the short-term construction noise. As detailed in SJMC Section 8.40.040, noise sources from construction, demolition, or grading of a public rightsof-way are exempted from the City’s noise standards. Thus, impacts related to offsite construction noise would be less than significant.

Additionally, noise generated from construction activities is temporary in nature and would only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays pursuant to SJMC Section 8.40.090, which would be ensured through the City’s permitting process. Thus, construction related noise impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Operational noise generated by the Project would primarily occur from project-generated traffic on nearby roadways and from onsite residential noise sources to other nearby sensitive receptors, as discussed below.

Roadway Vehicular Noise Impacts to Nearby Existing Residences Vehicle noise is a combination of noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires. The level of traffic noise depends on three factors: volume of traffic, speed of traffic, and number of trucks in the flow of traffic. The proposed single-family residences would not require a substantial number of truck trips and the proposed Project would not alter the speed limit on any existing roadway. As such, the proposed Project’s potential offsite noise impacts have been focused on the noise impacts associated with the change of volume of traffic that would occur with development of the proposed Project.

General Plan Policy PS-6.3 provides the following mobile source noise criteria to determine if a project would create a significant roadway noise impact:
• Where existing traffic noise levels are within or below the “normally acceptable” noise criteria at the affected land use (60 dBA CNEL or lower for residential), a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater increase in roadway noise would be considered significant. • Where existing traffic noise levels falls within the “conditionally acceptable” noise criteria at the sensitive land use (70 dBA CNEL or lower for residential), a +3 dBA CNEL or greater increase in roadway noise levels would be considered significant.
• Where existing traffic noise levels exceed the “conditionally acceptable” noise criteria at the sensitive land use, a +1.5 dBA CNEL or greater increase in roadway noise levels would be considered significant.

Existing Year Conditions
The proposed Project’s potential offsite traffic noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the Existing scenario to the Existing With Project scenario. The results of this comparison are shown in Table N-7. As shown, the increase in noise from additional vehicular traffic would not exceed the 3 dBA CNEL roadway noise increase threshold detailed in General Plan Policy PS-6.3. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the existing condition and impacts would be less than significant.

Table N-7: Existing Year Project Traffic Noise Contributions Roadway Segment
dBA CNEL at Nearest Receptor1
Increase
Threshold2 Existing
Existing Plus
Project
Project
Contribution
San Jacinto Avenue North of 7th Street 66.8 66.9 +0.1 +3 dBA San Jacinto Avenue North of Esplanade Avenue 68.2 68.3 +0.1 +3 dBA San Jacinto Avenue South of Esplanade Avenue 65.2 65.3 +0.1 +3 dBA The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
129
Roadway Segment
dBA CNEL at Nearest Receptor1
Increase
Threshold2 Existing
Existing Plus
Project
Project
Contribution
San Jacinto Avenue South of Commonwealth Avenue 61.7 61.9 +0.2 +3 dBA San Jacinto Avenue South of Oakland Avenue 67.8 67.9 +0.1 +3 dBA Hewitt Street North of Esplanade Avenue 61.2 61.4 +0.2 +3 dBA Hewitt Street South of Esplanade Avenue 65.1 65.2 +0.1 +3 dBA Esplanade Avenue West of San Jacinto Avenue 68.3 68.4 +0.1 +3 dBA Esplanade Avenue West of Driveway 1 65.9 66.1 +0.2 +3 dBA Esplanade Avenue East of Driveway 1 65.9 66.0 +0.1 +3 dBA Commonwealth Avenue West of Driveway 2 65.3 65.7 +0.4 +3 dBA 1 Distance to nearest sensitive receptors does not take into account existing noise barriers. 2 Road noise increase threshold from the General Plan Policy PS-6.3.

Source: Table K, Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix J).

Future Year 2045 Conditions
The proposed Project’s potential offsite traffic noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the future year 2045 without Project scenario to the future year 2045 with Project scenario. As shown in Table N-8, the proposed Project’s highest traffic noise increase would be 0.3, which would not exceed the roadway noise increase thresholds in General Plan Policy PS-6.3. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient traffic noise levels in the future year 2045 conditions.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Table N-8: Future Year 2045 Project Traffic Noise Contributions Roadway Segment
dBA CNEL at Nearest Receptor1
Increase
Threshold2
Year 2045
Without Project
Year 2045
Plus Project
Project
Contribution
San Jacinto Avenue North of 7th Street 71.0 71.0 +0.0 +1.5 dBA San Jacinto Avenue North of Esplanade Avenue 70.6 70.7 +0.1 +1.5 dBA San Jacinto Avenue South of Esplanade Avenue 66.8 66.9 +0.1 +3 dBA San Jacinto Avenue South of Commonwealth Ave 64.2 64.3 +0.1 +3 dBA San Jacinto Avenue South of Oakland Avenue 69.1 69.2 +0.1 +3 dBA Hewitt Street North of Esplanade Avenue 61.6 61.7 +0.1 +3 dBA Hewitt Street South of Esplanade Avenue 65.9 66.0 +0.1 +3 dBA Esplanade Avenue West of San Jacinto Avenue 68.9 69.0 +0.1 +3 dBA Esplanade Avenue West of Driveway 1 66.1 66.4 +0.3 +3 dBA Esplanade Avenue East of Driveway 1 66.1 66.3 +0.2 +3 dBA Commonwealth Ave West of Driveway 2 67.3 67.6 +0.3 +3 dBA 1 Distance to nearest sensitive receptors does not take into account existing noise barriers. 2 Road noise increase threshold obtained from the General Plan DEIR.

Source: Table L, Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix J).

Roadway Noise Impacts to Proposed Residences
General Plan Action PS-6b requires new development projects to show compliance with the mobile noise standards established in Table PS-2 (see Table N-2, above) of 65 dBA CNEL for the exterior and 45 dBA CNEL for the interior of the proposed single-family residences. The north side of the Project site is located adjacent to Esplanade Avenue, the east side of the Project site is located adjacent to Hewitt Street, and the south side of the Project site is located adjacent to Commonwealth Avenue.

The Noise Impact Analysis calculated the anticipated roadway noise impacts on the proposed Project using the FHWA model (Appendix J). Table N-9 shows the anticipated exterior and interior noise levels of the proposed residences. According to Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance, prepared by The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
130
U.S. Department of Transportation, December 2011, a new residential building provides a minimum of 10 dB of noise attenuation with windows open and a minimum of 25 dB of noise attenuation with windows closed and dual-paned windows. Thus, the interior noise levels listed in Table N-9 below have been calculated based on the 25 dB noise attenuation rate, since the proposed residential structures are required to be designed to meet the CCR Title 24, Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards which require the installation of dual paned windows.

As shown, the noise levels at all analyzed residential backyards would be within the residential exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL and the interior noise levels of all analyzed residences would be within the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Therefore, roadway noise would not result in a significant impact to the proposed residences, and impacts would be less than significant.

Table N-9: Proposed Residences Exterior and Interior Noise Levels Lot
Number Roadway
Exterior Backyard Noise
Level1
(dBA CNEL)
Interior Noise Levels Exceed 60 dBA
Exterior or 45 dBA
Interior Threshold? Floor Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)2
166 Esplanade Avenue 59 First 34 No/No
Second 40 No/No
115 Hewitt Street 58 First 33 No/No
Second 40 No/No
132 Commonwealth Avenue 58 First 33 No/No
Second 39 No/No 1 Includes the noise reduction provided by proposed 6-foot-high wall that is shown on the Wall Plan (see Figure 3-7). 2 Interior noise level based on a 25 dB exterior to interior noise reduction rate that allows for a “windows closed” condition (U.S.

Department of Transportation, December 2011)
Source: Table M, Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix J).

Proposed Onsite Activity Noise Impacts
As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the proposed Project includes two onsite parks (Lot A and Lot B) that would be located at the center of the Project site that contain a large lawn area, playground for children, barbeque facility with picnic tables, pickleball courts, and water features. The parks would be connected to pedestrian trails with exercise equipment that would run in both a north-south direction across the middle of the Project site and eastward direction to Hewitt Street. In addition, the northwest corner of the Project site would be a dual use water quality basin and turf play lawn.

General Plan Policy PS-6.3 provides the following stationary and non-transportation noise source criteria to determine if a project would create a significant noise impact:
• A significant impact will occur if the project results in an exceedance of the noise level standards contained in this element, or the project will result in an increase in ambient noise levels by more than 3 dB, whichever is greater. Table PS-3 shows that for single-family residential properties, the allowed noise level from stationary noise sources is 65 dBA Leq between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 45 dBA Leq between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

According to the Project applicant, the proposed parks and pickleball courts would have operating hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and would be closed every night or at least be limited to non-noise creating activities, such as walkers and joggers between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.. As such, this analysis is limited to the daytime activities and noise standards.

Since the proposed residences must be constructed to meet the required CCR Title 24, Part 6 building energyefficiency standards that require the installation of dual-paned windows as well as enhanced insulation requirements, which provides a minimum 25 dB of exterior to interior noise reduction, this analysis has utilized The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
131
only the exterior noise standard, since it is not possible to exceed the interior noise standard, without also exceeding the exterior noise standard.

Further, Section 8.40.140 of the SJMC requires that applications for mechanical permits for air conditioners are required to show that the proposed air conditioner unit to be installed has a sound rating that is below the City noise standards. As such, no air conditioner noise impacts are anticipated to occur from operation of the proposed Project.

Table N-10 provides a summary of the reference noise levels and the anticipated noise level from each source at the nearest existing or proposed residence to each noise source. The noise levels at the nearest residence was calculated based on standard geometric spreading of noise, which provides an attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling the distance between source and receptor. The noise reduction calculations include the proposed minimum 6.0-foot-high walls that are shown in Figure 3-7, Wall Plan.

Table N-10: Proposed Activity Areas Operational Noise Levels at the Nearest Residences Noise Source
Reference Noise Measurements1 Calculated Noise Levels City Standard
(dBA Leq)
Exceed
City
Standard?
Distance to
Source (feet)
Reference Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Nearest
Home (feet)
Noise Level2
(dBA Leq)
Tot Lot 5 66.6 15 48 65 No
Grass Playfields 5 58.9 15 42 65 No
Shade Structures 10 45.7 5 52 65 No
Pickle Ball Courts 14 63.6 40 54 65 No
Exercise Trails 5 45.0 3 49 65 No 1 Reference noise measurements were taken for each noise source and the noise measurement printouts are provided in Appendix J 2 The calculated noise levels account for the noise reduction provided by the proposed 6-foot-high walls between the proposed residential backyards and the onsite activity areas as detailed on the Proposed Wall Plan (see Figure 3-7).

Source: Table N, Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix J)
Table N-10 shows that that noise from all proposed activity area noise sources associated with the operation of the proposed Project would be within the City’s daytime residential exterior noise standard of 65 dBA Leq at the nearest existing residences. Therefore, the Project’s operational noise levels would result in a less than significant impact. Overall, the Project would result in reduced impacts compared to the findings of the GPU EIR and would result in no new or increased impacts related to temporary and permanent increase in ambient noise.
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? No New Impact.

This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.13-45 through 5.13-47 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

Construction
Construction vibration analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using vibration levels in RMS (VdB) and assesses the potential for building damage using vibration levels in PPV (in/sec). This is because vibration levels calculated in RMS velocity are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, while calculating vibration levels in PPV is best for characterizing the potential for damage. As shown in Table N11, large bulldozers and other heavy-tracked construction equipment generate approximately a maximum

0.089 PPV in/sec or 87 VdB of ground-borne vibration when measured at 25 feet, based on the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
132
Table N-11: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment Reference PPV/Lv Velocity at 25 feet
PPV (in/sec) Lv(VdB)1
Pile Driver (Impact), Typical 0.644 104
Pile Driver (Sonic), Typical 0.170 93
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer2 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks2 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58 1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 μin/sec. 2 Equipment shown in bold is expected to be used on site in/sec = inch/inches per second; LV = velocity in decibels; PPV = peak particle velocity; VdB = vibration velocity decibels Source: Table I, Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix J)
Vibration impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed Project would typically be created from the operation of heavy off-road equipment. The nearest vibration-related sensitive receptor is the Regal Theater structure that is located as near as 5 feet from the Project site. General Plan Action PS6h provides a vibration threshold for damage to nearby buildings of 0.30 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV). The primary source of vibration during construction would be from the operation of a bulldozer. As shown in Table N-11, a large bulldozer would create a vibration level of 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet. Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest offsite structure (5 feet away) would be 0.52 inch per second PPV (Appendix J). Thus, the vibration level at the nearest structure would exceed the City’s vibration threshold of 0.30 inch per second PPV provided in General Plan Action PS-6h. This would be considered a significant impact.

Therefore, the Project has been designed so that the use of heavy construction equipment (e.g., large bulldozers and loaded trucks) would be prohibited from operating within 10 feet of any existing adjacent offsite structures and all grading activities that occur within 10 feet of any offsite structure would require the use of a small dozer (i.e., D1, D2, or D3 dozers) or other equipment that is less than 150 horsepower to ensure that vibration levels are below the 0.30 PPV (in/sec) threshold (see PDF N-1). At 10 feet, large bulldozers and other large equipment powered by a greater than 150 horsepower engine would generate ground-borne vibrations levels of up to 0.24 PPV (in/sec) at the closest structure to the Project site and would not exceed the 0.3 PPV (in/sec) threshold (Appendix J). At 10 feet, small bulldozers powered by an engine that is less than 150 horsepower would generate ground-borne vibrations levels of up to 0.02 PPV (in/sec) at the closest structure to the Project site and would not exceed the 0.3 PPV (in/sec) threshold (Appendix J).

Additionally, as discussed above, construction activities are regulated by the SJMC Section 8.40.090, which states that construction activities are only permitted to occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. Therefore, vibration impacts would not occur during the more sensitive nighttime hours and no construction vibration impacts would occur. No new impact would occur.

Operation
Once operational, the Project would not generate a significant source of ground borne vibration. Ground borne vibration surrounding the Project currently result from heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks, heavy duty trucks, delivery trucks, and transit buses) on roadways. Operation of the Project would include passenger cars and trucks. Due to the rapid drop-off rate of ground-borne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic-induced ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
133
roadway right-of-way, and rarely results in vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity.

Therefore, the Project would result in no new or increased impacts related to ground borne vibration. c) For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.13-47 and was determined to have no impact.

The closest airport to the Project site is Hemet-Ryan Airport, which is located approximately 4.8 miles to the southwest. The proposed Project is not located within the Hemet-Ryan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Riverside Airport Land Use Commission, 2017). Therefore, consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, the proposed Project would not result in airport-related noise impacts to people residing or working within the Project site.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Noise, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU EIR would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None applicable to this Project.

GPU Goals and Policies Applicable to the Project
Policy PS-6.1: Noise Exposure. Consider the noise compatibility of existing and future development when making land use planning decisions. Require development and infrastructure projects to be consistent with the land use compatibility standards contained in Tables PS-1, PS-2, PS-3 and PS-4 to ensure acceptable noise exposure levels for existing and future development.

Policy PS-6.2: Noise Mitigation. Require new development to mitigate excessive noise to the standards indicated in Tables PS-1, PS-2, PS-3 and PS-4 to the extent feasible through best practices, including building location and orientation, building design features, placement of noise-generating equipment away from sensitive receptors, shielding of noise-generating equipment, placement of noise-tolerant features between noise sources and sensitive receptors, and use of noise-minimizing materials.

Policy PS-6.3: Acoustical Studies. Require acoustical studies for new discretionary developments and transportation improvements that have the potential to affect existing noise-sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, libraries, care facilities, and residential areas, and for projects that would introduce new noisesensitive uses into an area where existing noise levels may exceed the thresholds identified in this element.

For projects that are required to prepare an acoustical study, the following mobile and stationary noise source criteria shall be used to determine the significance of those impacts.

A. Mobile Noise Sources:

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
134
• Where existing traffic noise levels are within or below the “normally acceptable” noise criteria at the affected land use (see Table PS-1), a readily perceptible 5 dBA CNEL or greater increase in roadway noise will be considered significant;
• Where existing traffic noise levels falls within the “conditionally acceptable” noise criteria at the sensitive land use, a +3 dBA CNEL or greater increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant; and
• Where existing traffic noise levels exceed the “conditionally acceptable” noise criteria at the sensitive land use, a + 1.5 dBA CNEL or greater increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant.

B. Stationary and Non-Transportation Noise Sources
• A significant impact will occur if the project results in an exceedance of the noise level standards contained in this element, or the project will result in an increase in ambient noise levels by more than 3 dB, whichever is greater.

Policy PS-6.7: Construction Noise. Require construction activities to reduce noise impacts on adjacent uses to the criteria identified in Tables PS-3 and PS-4, or, if the criteria cannot be met, to the maximum extent feasible complying with Chapter 8.40 of the SJMC (Noise Control) and use best practices. Construction activities outside of the permitted construction hours identified in the SJMC may be approved on a case-bycase basis by the Community Development Director.

Action PS-6b: Review new development projects for compliance with the noise requirements established in this General Plan, including the standards established in Tables PS-1, PS-2, PS-3 and PS-4. Where necessary, require new development to mitigate excessive noise through best practices, including building location and orientation, building design features, placement of noise-generating equipment away from sensitive receptors, shielding of noise-generating equipment, placement of noise-tolerant features between noise sources and sensitive receptors, and use of noise-minimizing materials such as rubberized asphalt.

Action PS-6c: Require acoustical studies for all new discretionary projects, including those related to development and transportation, which have the potential to generate noise impacts which exceed the standards identified in this General Plan. The studies shall include representative noise measurements, estimates of existing and projected noise levels, and mitigation measures necessary to ensure compliance with this element.

Action PS-6e: Require all construction activity to comply with the limits (maximum noise levels, hours and days of allowed activity) established in the City noise regulations (Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Noise Ordinance) in order to reduce impacts associated with temporary construction noise to the extent feasible.

Trucks associated with construction activities shall follow the designated truck routes described in the Mobility Element.

Action PS-6h: Require new development to minimize vibration impacts to adjacent uses during demolition and construction. Require vibration studies for all new discretionary projects, including those related to development and transportation, which have the potential to generate vibration impacts which exceeds the vibration limits. This includes projects requiring pile driving and/or construction on properties adjacent to historic structures. For sensitive historic structures, a vibration limit of 0.08 in/sec PPV (peak particle velocity) will be used to minimize the potential for cosmetic damage to the building. A vibration limit of 0.30 in/sec PPV will be used to minimize the potential for cosmetic damage at buildings of normal conventional construction.

Project Design Feature
PDF N-1: Construction Plans. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Building Department shall ensure all construction plans, specifications, and permits include a note that the large bulldozers and any other The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
135
construction equipment that is powered by a greater than 150 horsepower engine shall not be operated within 10 feet of existing off-site structures. The use of a small bulldozer (i.e., D1, D2, or D3 dozers) or other type of equipment that is less than 150 horsepower is permitted to perform all grading activities that are located within 10 feet of any off-site structure.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Project
None applicable to this Project.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
136

5.14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Project
Peculiar
Impact that
is not
Substantially
Mitigated
by Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed impacts to population and housing on pages 5.14-7 through 5.14-12. The GPU EIR determined that the growth projections of the GPU would exceed the SCAG 2045 population, housing stock, and employment projections for the City of San Jacinto. However, SCAG uses GPU growth projections to form the basis of their planning and policy documents, including regional growth forecasts. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that the growth anticipated with the GPU would be considered in SCAG’s updated growth forecasts for the City. Additionally, the GPU EIR determined growth anticipated by the GPU would improve the City’s jobs/housing balance by providing additional employment opportunities for residents to potentially work in the area. Therefore, the GPU would beneficially impact the City’s jobs/housing balance by improving the jobs/housing ratio when compared to existing conditions. Further, the GPU takes into account the States regional housing need per the 2021-2029 period Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Therefore, the GPU EIR determined population and housing growth associated with the GPU would result in a less than significant impact.

The GPU EIR determined that the future development under the GPU is anticipated to occur on vacant land and would not displace a substantial number of existing housing units. The GPU is projected to increase the overall number of dwelling units in the City. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined impacts related to the displacement of people or housing would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.14-7 and was determined to have a less than significant impact with the implementation of the policies and actions in the GPU. Data from the California Department of Finance (CDOF) details that the City of San Jacinto had a residential population of 54,538 as of January 2024 (CDOF, 2024). The GPU EIR estimated that the city has an average of 3.4 persons per household (GPU EIR Section 3.5.3, General Plan Buildout Analysis). The Project would construct The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
137
249 single-family residential units and would be within with the zoning density requirements for the site.

Using the GPU EIR average persons per household, the proposed 249 residential units would result in approximately 847 new residents (3.4 persons per household x 249 residential units = 847 residents). The GPU EIR Table 3-4, General Plan 2040 Buildout by Land Use Designation, identifies that an increase of 10,942 residential units and a population increase of 36,543 residents would result from buildout of the MU General Plan land use designation. The proposed Project’s 249 residential units and 847 residents equates to 2.3 percent of the planned buildout of the MU zoning as evaluated in the GP EIR; and thus, does not result in induced growth.

According to the GPU EIR and the SCAG’s 2024-2050 RTP/SCS population growth forecast for San Jacinto, between 2019 and 2050, SCAG anticipates a population increase of 15,624 persons1 (from 53,400 in 2019 to 69,024 in 2050). The anticipated addition of 15,624 persons represents an approximately 22.6 percent increase in population from 2019 to 2050. The addition of 847 new residents would represent approximately 5.4 percent of the estimated population growth between 2019 and 2050.

Additionally, SCAG estimates the city could add an additional 9,600 households between 2019 and 2050.

The proposed Project would represent approximately 2.6 percent of projected household growth from 2019 to 2050. Therefore, the population increase that would be generated by the Project would be within, and not exceed, SCAG's growth assumptions and impacts related to induced growth would not occur.

The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use and zoning designation of MU, which allows residential densities between 10 and 36 dwelling units per gross acre. The Project would develop the 23.54-acre site with 249 residential units, resulting in a density of 10.57 du/ac.

Thus, the Project is consistent with the growth assumptions that were analyzed in the GPU EIR. Additionally, the proposed Project is located in an urbanized area of the City that is already served by existing roadways and infrastructure systems which is in-line with the GPU population and housing related goals and policies.

No infrastructure would be extended to serve areas beyond the Project site, and indirect impacts related to growth would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, potential impacts related to inducement of unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly, would not occur, and no new or increased impacts would occur. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.14-10 and was determined to have no significant impact. The Project would develop 249 residential units on the Project site, which is currently undeveloped. No people or housing would be displaced by implementation of the proposed Project.

Conversely, housing would be developed by the Project. Thus, the Project would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and no new or increased impacts would occur. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Population and Housing, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified. 1 The 2050 population estimate was derived using the methodology presented in Section 4.5 of the SCAG Demographics & Growth Forecast Technical Report (2024) which states an estimate of the future City-level population based on Connect SoCal’s household forecast can be derived using a county-level Population:Housing ratio from TABLE 12 [of the SCAG document] and applying it to the City’s future household growth (Southern California Association of Governments, 2024).

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
138

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU EIR would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None applicable to this Project.

GPU Goals, Policies & Actions
Applicable GPU policies and actions related to population and housing include the following:

Policy LU-3.1: Surrounding Uses. Consider as part of the development review process the compatibility of new development with surrounding uses and the ability of new development to enhance the character of the surrounding area.

Action LU-3b Through the development review process, evaluate development proposals for land use and transportation network compatibility with existing surrounding or abutting development or neighborhoods.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None applicable to this Project.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
139

5.15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Project
Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Would the Project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed impacts to fire protection services on pages 5.15-15 through 5.15-20. The GPU EIR determined buildout of the GPU would result in additional residents and businesses in the City which may result in the need for additional RCFD resources (i.e., additional staffing, equipment, expanded/new facilities). However, the GPU EIR discusses that buildout of the GPU is expected to occur gradually through 2040. Therefore, at this time, it is unknown whether RCFD would need to expand or construct new facilities to meet the demand of future development in the City. The GPU includes a range of policies and actions to ensure that fire protection and emergency services are provided in a timely fashion, are adequately funded, are coordinated between the City and the RCFD, and that new development funds its fair share of services.

Further, as development occurs, a proportional increase in property tax, charges for RCFD services, and other funding sources would increase and offset impacts of new development on RCFD’s existing resources in the City. SJMC Chapter 15.08, Building Permits, requires any construction or alteration requiring a building permit and meeting specific conditions to pay certain fees prior to issuance of the building permit.

Additionally, for any new residential or non-residential project meeting certain conditions, the owner would be required to annex the property into the City’s Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2003-1 or into a separate new CFD, which would provide financing for fire protection services. New development in the GPU The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
140
would be required to comply with all applicable California Fire Code requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and hydrants and individual project development plans would be reviewed by RCFD to determine specific fire requirements (e.g., fire flow capacities, emergency access, fuel modification plans) applicable to the specific development and to ensure compliance with these requirements. Thus, the GPU EIR describes that while the need for future development of new or expanded fire facilities are unknown at this time, any future development under the GPU would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the GPU, and would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined impacts related to the provision of fire protection and emergency services would be less than significant.

The GPU EIR discussed impacts to police protection services on pages 5.15-20 through 5.15-23. The GPU EIR determined development accommodated under the GPU would result in additional residents and businesses in the City, which would increase demand for police protection services provided by Riverside County Sheriff Department (RCSD). Development under the GPU is expected to occur gradually through 2040, therefore, any increase in demand for police protection services would similarly occur gradually as additional development and associated population growth is added to the City. The GPU EIR discusses that as additional development is proposed, RCSD service levels and staffing requirements would be evaluated on an annual basis to determine additional staffing and or facility needs. The GPU includes a range of policies and actions, to ensure that adequate police protection services are provided to serve growth associated with implementation of the GPU. Additionally, future development under the GPU would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the GPU, and would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined impacts related to the provision of police protection services would be less than significant.

The GPU EIR discussed impacts to school services on pages 5.15-24 through 5.15-28. The GPU EIR describes that implementation of the GPU could result in the development of up to 16,252 dwelling units over existing conditions which would contribute to a significant addition of students. The GPU includes policies and actions to ensure that adequate services are provided to serve growth associated with implementation of the GPU.

Additionally, pursuant to SB 50, payment of fees to the applicable school district is considered full mitigation for project impacts, including impacts related to the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives for schools. Therefore, individual development projects in accordance with the General Plan Update would be required to pay the statutory fees, so that school facilities can be constructed/expanded, if necessary, at the nearest sites to accommodate the impact of project-generated students, reducing impacts to a less than significant level. Further, any future development under the GPU would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the GPU, and development of school facilities would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined impacts related to the provision of schools would be less than significant.

The GPU EIR discussed impacts to library services on pages 5.15-28 through 5.15-30. The GPU EIR determined development accommodated under the GPU would result in addition residents and businesses in the City which would increase the demand for public services, including library services. Future development is assumed to occur over time through 2040; thus, any increase in demand for library services would occur gradually as additional development and associated population growth is added to the City. The GPU includes policies and actions to ensure that library services are adequately funded, are coordinated between the City and the Riverside County Library System (RCLS), and that new development funds its fair share of services. Additionally, any future development under the GPU would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the GPU, and would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate.

Therefore, the GPU EIR determined impacts related to the provision of library services would be less than significant.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
141
The GPU EIR discussed impacts to parks and recreational facilities on pages 5.16-7 through 5.16-17. The GPU EIR determined implementation and buildout of the GPU would increase the residential population of the City and therefore could result in greater demands on parks and recreation facilities. Although implementation of the GPU would cause an incremental increase in demand for parks in the future, this increase could be further reduced to a less than significant level by the provision of public parkland and private on-site recreational amenities and through the payment of park fees, as established in SJMC Chapter

15.36, Park and Open Space Development Fees. Compliance with and the implementation of applicable GPU policies and actions and compliance with the SJMC would ensure parks and recreational facilities would not be overused to the point of substantial deterioration. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined impacts would be less than significant.

Overall, the GPU EIR determined impacts related to public services would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulatory requirements and GPU policies and actions.

Project-Specific Impacts
a) Fire Protection and Emergency Services
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.15-15 and was determined to have a less than significant impact. RCFD is the primary provider of fire suppression, pre-hospital emergency medical care, disaster preparedness coordination, hazard mitigation, and fire prevention services in the City, including to the Project site.

The closest fire station to the site is Riverside County Fire Station No. 25, which is located at 132 S San Jacinto Avenue, 1.09 miles north of the site. In addition, Riverside County Fire Station No. 78 is located 3.5 miles northwest of the site at 2450 Cottonwood Avenue. As of 2022, RCFD maintained an average response time of 4.4 minutes (City of San Jacinto, 2023). The proposed Project would redevelop the site with 249 new residences and is expected to result in 847 residents at full buildout (see Section 5.14, Population and Housing). Due to the increase in residents that would occur from implementation of the Project, an incremental increase in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services would occur. However, because the Project site is located 1.09 miles from the fire station and is within a residential and commercial area that is already served, the Project would not require expansion of the existing fire station or construction of a new fire station.

Also, as the Project is within the allowable buildout of the MU General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations, an increase in impacts related to fire services compared to those identified in the GPU EIR would not occur. Therefore, the Project would result in no new or increased impact related to fire services.

Additionally, in accordance with GPU Policy RM-9.3, the Project would be responsible for the payment of development impact fees which would offset future fire protection needs. The development impact fees and future tax revenue would be directed via GPU Policy PS-5.1 to ensure the provision of sufficient levels of all emergency response services to protect the health, safety, and welfare of all persons and to protect property in the City. Also, GPU Policy RM 6.1 encourages the RCFD to maintain adequate staff and equipment to provide efficient, high quality, and responsive public safety services to the San Jacinto community. In accordance with GPU Action PS-2c, the Project would be required to adhere to the California Fire Code, as included in SJMC Chapter 8.16 that would facilitate emergency service provision. Further, the Project would comply with GPU Action RM-6f which ensures future developers will contribute funds for fire services through the adopted developer fees.

Therefore, impacts related to fire protection and emergency services from the proposed Project would be less than significant and no new impacts related to fire protection or emergency services would occur. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
142
b) Police Protection
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.15-20 through 5.15-23 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

The RCSD provides policing services throughout the City. RCSD maintains a police station at 160 W 6th Street, which is approximately 1.2 roadway miles northwest from the Project site. The City’s police services contract consists of 39 personnel assigned to general law enforcement patrol services, a traffic enforcement team, a special enforcement team, investigations, and a police K9 unit (City of San Jacinto, 2022a).

Development of the proposed 249 residential units would result in an incremental increase in demand for law enforcement services. However, the increase would not be significant when compared to the current demand levels. As described in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, the residential population of the Project site at full occupancy would be approximately 847 residents. Given that the Project is within the General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations allowable density, full buildout of the Project would be within the GPU EIR’s evaluation of anticipated impacts related to police services and would not result in new or increased impacts. Also, the increase in police service demands from the Project would not require construction of new or expanded policing facilities. Therefore, the Project would result in no new or increased impact related to police protection. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR. c) School Services
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.15-24 through 5.15-28 and was determined to be less than significant.

The Project site is located within the San Jacinto Unified School District (SJUSD). The SJUSD currently operates 17 schools, including: six elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, four SJUSD magnet academy’s, one K-12th grade charter school, one adult education school, and one pre-school (SJUSD, 2024a).

As of the 2023/2024 school year, the SJUSD had a total enrollment of 11,970 students (California Department of Education, 2024).

The schools that would serve the Project are San Jacinto Elementary School located at 136 N Ramona Boulevard, which is 1.8 miles from the Project site; Monte Vista Middle School located at 425 N Lyon Avenue, which is 3.8 miles from the Project site; and San Jacinto High School located at 500 Idyllwild Drive, which is

2.3 miles from the Project site.

The Project would develop the site with 249 residential units. The SJUSD utilizes the student generation factors listed in Table PS-1. Using these student generation factors, the proposed 249 residences could result in approximately 178 new students that would range in age from elementary through high school.

Table PS-1: Student Generation Factor
School Student Generation Factor
Elementary School (TK-6) 0.3803 students/du
Middle School (7-8) 0.1154 students/du
High School (9-12) 0.2196 students/du
du = dwelling unit
Source: San Jacinto Unified School District 2024 Fee Justification Study (April 18, 2024)
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq., the need for additional school facilities is addressed through compliance with school impact fee assessment. Senate Bill 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s ability to condition a project on mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in the Government Code. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits for The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
143
development projects. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 applicants shall pay developer fees to the appropriate school districts at the time building permits are issued; and payment of the adopted fees provides full and complete mitigation of school impacts. The school impact fee for new residential developments within the SJUSD boundary is $5.17 per SF (SJUSD, 2024b). The Project applicant would be required to pay school impact fees prior to issuance of a building permit to offset the cost of providing school services and facilities. As a result, there would be no impacts related to school facilities with the Government Code required fee payments. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR and would result in no new or increased impacts related to school services. d) Parks
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.16-7 through 5.16-17and was determined to have a less than significant impact. The City of San Jacinto has over 170 acres of parkland.

The closest parks to the Project site include the following:
• Rancho Park located at 975 E Esplanade Avenue, approximately 0.34-mile from the Project site.

This park is approximately 5.43 acres and contains the following facilities: picnic shelters, water fountains, open grass areas, ball fields, basketball courts, tennis courts. • Hafliger Park located at 630 E gape Avenue, approximately 0.48-mile from the Project site. This park is approximately 1.6 acres and contains the following facilities: picnic shelters, open grass areas, water fountains, playground, and ½ court basketball pads.

The Project would develop 249 new residential units and 1.3-acres (58,420 SF) of common open space recreation area on the site for use by residents. As described previously, the Project would result in approximately 847 residents. The City has adopted a standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

Based on this standard, the Project would require 4.24-acres or approximately 184,694 SF of parkland dedication. Therefore, the Project’s park demand would not be fully met by the provision of the onsite recreation areas. However, as described previously, the City currently has over 170 acres of park facilities, including two parks within one mile of the Project site. Additionally, the SJMC Chapter 15.36, Park and Open Space Development Fees, specifies fees that park development fees must be paid to the City when development occurs. These fees would be used towards the future expansion or maintenance parks and recreational facilities and would offset the additional park need of the Project. Therefore, impacts related to the need to provide new or altered park and recreation facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios would be less than significant with the payment of parkland fees. Therefore, the Project would result in no new or increased impacts related to parks. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR.
e) Other Public Facilities
No New Impact. The proposed Project would redevelop the Project site with 249 residential units within an area that already contains residential land uses. The additional residences would result in a limited incremental increase in the need for additional services, such as public libraries and post offices, etc. Because the Project area is already served by other services and the Project would result in a limited increase in population, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered facilities to provide other services, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Additionally, consistent with GPU policies LU-2.1 and RM-9.3, the payment of applicable development impact fees and taxes are anticipated to offset the Project’s incrementally increased demand for other public services. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts related to other public facilities. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Public Services, the following findings can be made:

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
144

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU EIR would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None applicable to this Project.

GPU Goals, Policies & Actions
Applicable GPU policies and actions related to public services include the following:

Land Use Element
Policy LU-2.1: Plan for New Development. Ensure that new development corresponds to the provision of infrastructure, public services, and community facilities and that new development funds and constructs its fair share of improvements in accordance with City requirements.

Public Safety Element
Policy PS-2.1: Building Fire Codes. Require that all buildings and facilities within San Jacinto comply with local, state, and federal regulatory standards such as the California Building and Fire Codes as well as other applicable fire safety standards.

Action PS-2c: Require that all new habitable structures be designed in accordance with the most recent California Building and Fire Code with local amendments adopted by the City, including the use of fire sprinklers in residential structures.

Resource Management Element
Action RM-6d: During the development review process, require design features that reduce the potential for crime. New projects should:
a. Provide well-lighted and visible streets and street names, building entrances and addresses, common areas, and parking facilities.
b. Limit access into and between buildings to reduce escape routes and to make undetected entry difficult.
c. Provide landscaping that permits the natural surveillance of open areas and entryways, and avoids creating places for concealment.
d. Be designed to permit emergency vehicle access to all sides of buildings located in multi-family and non-residential developments.
e. Be designed to allow for defensible space.

Action RM-6f: In cooperation with the Riverside County Fire Department, adopt and maintain level of service (e.g., response times, call handling) and staffing standards, as well as a developer fee program for fire services. Review the level of services and funding levels at budget time, adjusting when necessary to ensure that adequate levels of service and facilities are provided and maintained. Future developers will contribute funds for fire services through the adopted developer fees. During the budget and CIP process, reserve future sites through purchase, eminent domain, dedication, donation, or a combination of these procedures.

Policy RM-8.2: School Facilities. Work with developers and the school district to ensure the payment of fees, construction, and expansion of school facilities to address expected increases in school-age population.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
145
Policy RM-9.3: Fair Share. Ensure that all new development provides for and funds its fair share of the costs for the expansion of public infrastructure and services, recreational amenities, and facilities.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None applicable to this Project.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
146

5.16. RECREATION
Project
Peculiar
Impact that
is not
Substantially
Mitigated
by Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Would the Project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the Project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed impacts to parks and recreational facilities on pages 5.16-7 through 5.16-17. The GPU EIR determined implementation and buildout of the GPU would increase the residential population of the City and therefore could result in greater demands on parks and recreation facilities. Although implementation of the GPU would cause an incremental increase in demand for parks in the future, this increase could be further reduced to a less than significant level by the provision of public parkland and private on-site recreational amenities and through the payment of park fees, as established in SJMC Chapter

The GPU EIR also discusses that based on the anticipated 2040 GPU buildout population of 107,152, a total of 535.76 acres of parkland will be needed to comply with the City’s park standard of five acres per 1,000 people. The GPU itself does not propose site-specific development projects. However, as future development projects are carried out under the GPU, they would require a separate environmental review and would be required to comply with regulations in existence at that time which would address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new parks. Therefore, with compliance to environmental regulations established at the time of future park and recreational projects are proposed, and adherence to GPU policies and actions, the GPU EIR determined that impacts associated with the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would less than significant.

Overall, the GPU EIR determined impacts related to recreation would be less than significant through compliance with the GPU, SJMC, CEQA process, and other applicable regulations.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
147
Project-Specific Impacts
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.16-7 through 5.16-13 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

GPU Action RM-7a requires new residential development projects to provide adequate parkland equal to five acres per 1,000 residents (0.005 acre per resident) or pay an in-lieu fee prior to occupancy of the project. As described previously, the Project would result in approximately 847 new residents. Based on this standard, the Project would require 4.24-acres or approximately 184,694 SF of parkland dedication. The Project would include 1.3-acres (58,420 SF) of common open space recreation area on the site for use by residents. Therefore, some of the Project’s park and recreational demand would be met by the provision of the proposed onsite facilities. According to the GPU EIR, the City currently has over 170 acres of parkland, with nine parks within two miles of the site. Due to the limited increase in population from implementation of the Project, provision of onsite community open space, and the amount of existing open space areas near the site, impacts related to the increase in the use of existing parks and recreational facilities, such that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated, would be less than significant. Additionally, the Project is consistent with GPU policy LU-1.6 which encourages the provision of attractive outdoor gathering places to strengthen social engagement and provide visual relief in developed areas. The proposed Project includes a community park as well as an open space lawn which could be used by future residents to gather with their neighbors. The Project is also consistent with GPU policy RM-7.4 which requires future private development to incorporate parkland and open space to expand recreational opportunities in the community. Consistent with GPU policies LU-2.1 and RM-9.3 and SJMC Chapter 15.36, Park and Open Space Development Fees, the Project would also contribute park development fees to be used towards the future expansion or maintenance parks and recreational facilities. Therefore, the Project would result in no new or increased impacts related to physical deterioration of recreation and park facility. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR. b) Require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.13-13 through 5.13-17 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

Consistent with GPU Policy RM-7.4 and Action RM-7a, the applicant would be required to provide adequate parkland equal to five acres per 1,000 residents (0.005 acre per resident) or pay an in-lieu fee prior to occupancy of the project. As described above, the Project includes 1.3-acres (58,420 SF) of open space recreation area. The impacts related to development of the open space recreation area are considered part of the impacts of the proposed Project as a whole and are analyzed throughout the various sections of this document. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the recreation area are analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation Sections. The Project would also contribute park development fees pursuant to SJMC Chapter 15.36, Park and Open Space Development Fees, to be used towards the future expansion or maintenance parks and recreational facilities, these fees are standard with every residential development, and the proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would have no new or increased impacts related to expansion of recreational facilities. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
148
Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Recreation, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU EIR would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None applicable to this Project.

GPU Goals, Policies & Actions
Applicable GPU policies and actions related to recreation include the following:

Land Use Element
Policy LU-1.6: Gathering Spaces. Support the provision of attractive outdoor gathering places such as plazas, green space, and squares to strengthen social engagement and provide visual relief in developed areas.

Policy LU-2.1: Plan for New Development. Ensure that new development corresponds to the provision of infrastructure, public services, and community facilities and that new development funds and constructs its fair share of improvements in accordance with City requirements.

Resource Management Element
Policy RM-7.4: Parkland Dedication. Require future private development to incorporate parkland, open space, or green space to expand recreational opportunities in the community in accordance with standards set by the San Jacinto Municipal Code.

Policy RM-9.3: Fair Share. Ensure that all new development provides for and funds its fair share of the costs for the expansion of public infrastructure and services, recreational amenities, and facilities.

Action RM-7a: Review development proposals for their potential demand for and impact on parks and recreational facilities in the community by:
• Requiring developers of residential projects to provide adequate parkland equal to five acres per 1,000 residents (0.005 acre per resident) or pay an in-lieu fee prior to occupancy of the project. • Requiring non-residential development to provide parkland equal to 2.5 acres per 1,000 employees (0.0025 acre per employee) or pay an in lieu fee prior to occupancy of the project. • Work with developers to identify the appropriate park type(s), size(s), facilities, and location(s) for required park facilities.
• Ensure parkland facilities conform with City standards.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None applicable to this Project.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
149

5.17. TRANSPORTATION
Project
Peculiar
Impact that
is not
Substantiall
y Mitigated
by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
b) Would the Project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed impacts related to transportation and traffic on pages 5.17-1 through 5.17-30. The GPU EIR determined the GPU would not conflict with applicable plans, polices, or ordinances related to vehicle circulation. The GPU includes policies that support access to and the performance of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The GPU EIR notes that San Jacinto does not have an adopted bicycle or pedestrian master plan or defined measures of effectiveness for bicycle and pedestrian circulation. However, the GPU includes policies to support access and performance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The GPU EIR determined implementation of the GPU would not conflict with applicable plans, polices, or ordinances related to bicycle and pedestrian circulation. Additionally, the GPU EIR notes the City does not have defined measures of effectiveness for public transit service and circulation. However, the Mobility Element developed as part of the GPU includes policies to support and enhance transit service. Overall, the GPU EIR determined the GPU would not conflict with applicable plans, polices, or ordinances related to public transit circulation.

The GPU EIR determined implementation and buildout of the GPU would not increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per person above current conditions. Home-based VMT per resident, work-based VMT per employee, and total VMT per service population are all expected to decrease under the GP. The GPU EIR attributes part of the expected VMT reduction to the GPU Land Use Plan which proposes a more balanced mix of residential and employment opportunities which in turn helps to reduce the prevalence of long-distance “super-commutes” for San Jacinto residents. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined VMT-related impacts of the GPU would be less than significant.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
150
Through GPU EIR determined that implementation and buildout of the GPU would not substantially increase hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses because land use proposals that would add traffic to streets not designed to current standards would be carefully evaluated through the development and environmental review process. In addition, the Mobility Element of the GPU contains policies in support of roadway network safety and reducing design hazards. Overall, the GPU EIR determined impacts related to design hazards would be less than significant.

The GPU EIR determined implementation of the GPU would result in increased development which would result in new roadways and would increase the number of users on the City’s transportation system. However, future development projects would be evaluated through the development and environmental review process for their adequacy of emergency access. Additionally, future developments would be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with applicable standards, including vehicular access to ensure that adequate emergency access and evacuation would be maintained. Construction activities that may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined impacts related to emergency access as a result of GPU implementation and buildout would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
This section was prepared using the following report.
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., September 10, 2024, and included as Appendix K.
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.17-17 through 5.17-21 and was determined to be less than significant.

The proposed Project involves the construction of 249 residential units. Vehicular access to the proposed Project would be provided via two driveways, one connecting to Esplanade Avenue and one connecting to Commonwealth Avenue. Vehicular traffic to and from the Project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently serve the Project area. The Project would construct internal roadways that would provide connection to and from proposed residences to adjacent residential areas.

However, final design plans would be subject to review and approval by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The Project is consistent with applicable GPU policies including LU-2.2 which encourages new development to occur in infill locations in order to reduce sprawl and create convenient connections to other land uses, and ED-3.2 which encourages higher density housing located near commercial corridors.

Additionally, the Project is consistent with GPU policy LU-4.4 which encourages pedestrian-friendly and pedestrian-scaled development. The Project includes Class I trails and an interconnected internal sidewalk layout intended to encourage pedestrian use. As such, the Project would not introduce any new roadways or land uses that would interfere with adopted plans, programs, ordinances, or policies regarding roadway facilities therefore impacts would be less than significant impact.

Alternative Transportation
The Project would include construction of new sidewalks along Project frontage on Esplanade Avenue, Hewitt Street, and Commonwealth Avenue. A Class I bicycle lane currently exists along the west side of Hewitt Street and Figure 5.17-4, TMP Proposed Bicycle Facilities, of the GPU EIR, identifies that a Class I bicycle lane is planned along Esplanade Avenue. The proposed Project’s sidewalk improvements would not conflict with the existing bicycle facility along Hewitt Street or the planned bicycle facility on Esplanade Avenue.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
151
Thus, the Project would install additional sidewalks and would not conflict with bicycle routes. Thus, no impacts to these facilities would result from implementation of the Project.

The closest bus route to the site is Riverside Transit Agency Route 44, which runs along San Jacinto Avenue, approximately 0.2 mile west of the site. The Project would result in additional residents that could use transit services. Buildout of the Project site would not disrupt the existing bus route. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with alternative transportation and Project impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. As such, there would be no new or increased impacts. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.17-21 through 5.17-25 and was determined to have a less than significant.

Changes to CEQA Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) as the measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. To aid in this transition, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December of 2018) (Technical Advisory). Based on OPR’s Technical Advisory and its specific procedures for complying with the new CEQA requirements for VMT analysis, the City of San Jacinto has developed and adopted their own VMT methodologies and thresholds (Section 12.2, City Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines).

The City Guidelines describe specific “screening thresholds” that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact without conducting a more detailed project level VMT analysis. Consistent with City Guidelines, a land use project needs only to satisfy one of the following four screening thresholds to result in a less than significant impact. Project consistency with screening thresholds is described below.

1. Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening: City Guidelines state that projects located within a TPA (i.e. within one-half mile of an existing “major transit stop” or an existing stop along a “high-quality transit corridor”) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact. As described in Appendix K, the Project site is not located within a TPA, thus this screening criteria is not met.

2. Low VMT Area Screening: City Guidelines state that projects located in an already low VMT generating traffic analysis zone (TAZ) may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.

As described in Appendix K, the Project site is within TAZ 2192 and is not within a low VMT generating area. Therefore, this screening criteria is not met.

3. Project Type Screening: City Guidelines state that land use projects which would generate fewer than 500 average daily trips (ADT) would not cause a substantial increase in the total citywide or regional VMT and would have a less than significant impact on VMT. In addition to local serving retail, the City Guidelines state the following uses can also be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT: local-serving K-12 schools, local parks, day care centers, local-serving gas stations, local-serving banks, local-serving hotels (e.g. non-destination hotels), student housing projects, local serving community colleges, and projects generating less than 500 daily vehicle trips.

The estimate of Project trips was generated using Single-Family Detached Housing (Land Use Code 210) trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition (2021). As shown in Table T-1, the Project would generate 2,348 daily trips. Therefore, because the Project does not propose a local serving land use and would generate more than 500 daily net new vehicle trips, the Project would not satisfy the requirements of Screening Criteria 3.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
152
Because the Project did not meet any of the City’s VMT Screening Criteria, a VMT Analysis was prepared.

Table T-1: Project Trip Generation
Land Use Units Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates
Single-Family
Detached Housing1
Dwelling
Units 9.43 0.18 0.52 0.70 0.59 0.35 0.94
Proposed Project
Trip Generation 249 2,348 45 129 174 147 87 234
1 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation,11th Edition, 2021. Land Use Code 210 Single Family Detached Housing.

Source: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis (Appendix K)
According to Section 3.2 of the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, a project would result in a significant project generated VMT impact if either of the following conditions are satisfied:

1. The project-generated VMT/SP exceeds the WRCOG Subregional VMT/SP; or

2. The cumulative project-generated VMT/SP exceeds the WRCOG Subregional VMT/SP.

The VMT analysis results per the City’s Guidelines are shown in Table T-2. Based on the WRCOG region average, the Origin-Destination (OD) VMT/SP is 34.6 for Base Year (2018) and 33.4 for Cumulative Year (2045). Therefore, based on the WRCOG region average, the VMT/SP threshold for baseline year 2024 is 34.2 VMT/SP.

As shown in Table T-2, the Project VMT/SP would be 2.8 percent below the threshold under Project Baseline 2024 conditions and 7.8 percent below the threshold under Cumulative Year 2045 conditions. The result of TAZ 2192’s OD VMT/SP being lower under the with-project scenario compared to the no-project scenario (49.4 OD VMT/SP for baseline 2024 based on the WRCOG VMT screening tool) is expected and reasonable, since the Project adds population to a TAZ with significantly more employment than population, which would reduce the average trip length of home-based work trips of TAZ 2192. The Project also adds more service population to TAZ 2192. Therefore, the Project would result in a less-than-significant VMT impact, which is consistent with the GPU EIR and no new or increased impact would occur.

Table T-2: VMT Analysis
Analysis Data Base Year 2018 Baseline 2024 Cumulative Year 2045
Project TAZ 2192 Total Origin Destination VMT 47,510 44,701 34,871 TAZ 2192 Population 840 845 864
TAZ 2192 Employment 564 498 268
TAZ 2192 Service Population 1,404 1,344 1,132
Project OD VMT/SP 33.8 33.3 30.8
WRCOG Region Total Origin Destination VMT 81,010,465 93,300,987 117,817,812 WRCOG Regionwide Population 1,889,968 2,065,880 2,681,571 WRCOG Regionwide Employment 570,349 631,684 846,356
WRCOG Regionwide Service Population 2,460,317 2,697,564 3,527,927 OD VMT/SP for WRCOG Region 34.6 34.2 33.4
Percent Above/Below Threshold - -2.8% -7.8%
Impact? - No No
Source: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis (Appendix K)
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
153
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.17-25 through 5.17-27 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via two ingress and egress driveways; one connecting to Esplanade Avenue and one connecting to Commonwealth Avenue. Vehicular traffic to and from the Project site would utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently serve the Project area.

The Project would not introduce any new roadways or introduce a land use that would conflict with existing urban land uses in the surrounding area. The proposed Project includes internal drive aisles that would provide passenger vehicles access to the residential units. Design of the proposed Project, including the internal private roadway, ingress, egress, and other streetscape changes are subject to the City’s development standards. For example, the design of the Project streets would be reviewed to ensure fire engine accessibility and turn around area is provided to the fire code standards. As a result, impacts related to vehicular circulation design features would be less than significant, and no new or increased impacts would occur. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.17-27 through 5.17-28 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

Construction
The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the Project site or adjacent areas. The installation of driveways and connections to existing infrastructure systems that would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project could require the temporary closure of one side or portions of Esplanade Avenue and Commonwealth Avenue for a short period of time (i.e., hours or a few days). However, the construction activities would be required to ensure emergency access in accordance with Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), which would be ensured through the City’s permitting process. Thus, implementation of the Project through the City’s permitting process would ensure existing regulations are adhered to and would reduce potential construction related emergency access impacts to a less than significant level. As such, there would be no new impacts related to emergency access during construction.

Operation
As described previously, vehicle access to the proposed Project would be provided via Esplanade Avenue and Commonwealth Avenue. The City’s construction permitting process would ensure adequate and safe circulation to, from, and through the Project area, and would provide routes for emergency responders to access different portions of the Project site. The Fire Department and the Public Works Department would review the development plans as part of the permitting procedures to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9), included as SJMC Chapter 8.16. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City’s permitting process, potential impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant and would result in no new or increased impacts to emergency access during operation. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Transportation and Traffic, the following findings can be made:

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
154

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU EIR would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None applicable to this Project.

GPU Goals, Policies & Actions
Applicable GPU policies and actions related to transportation include the following:

Policy LU-4.4: Pedestrian Design. Support pedestrian-friendly and pedestrian-scaled development that encourages more social interaction and less automobile use, especially in the Downtown Village.

Economic Development Element
Policy ED-3.2: Higher Intensity Development. Encourage higher density housing and higher intensity employment space to locate in mixed-use formats along the City’s commercial corridors, near transit nodes, and in areas well-served by the City’s multimodal transportation network.

Mobility Element
Policy M-1.2: Access and Mobility: Strive to maintain sufficient access and mobility for all modes of travel and users of the roadway network.

Policy M-1.5: Transportation Improvements for All Users: Encourage roadway, sidewalk, and median improvements that enhance the visual character of the roadway system and promote pedestrian and bicycle safety.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None applicable to this Project.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
155

5.18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Project Peculiar
Impact that is
not
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniformly
Applied Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed as
Significant in
the Prior EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No
New
Impact
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe, and
that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed impacts to tribal cultural resources on page 5.18-11 through 5.18-14. The GPU EIR determined that future development under the GPU could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, potentially resulting in a significant impact. The GPU Resource Management Element includes goals, policies, and actions addressing tribal cultural resources. Additionally, subsequent development and infrastructure projects would be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA, pursuant to the City’s entitlement review process. Subsequent projects implemented in accordance with the GPU would be subject to the provisions of Assembly Bill 52 and may require tribal consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Planning Area. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that compliance with the GPU policies and actions and existing regulations would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource and impacts would be less than significant.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
156
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.18-11 and was determined to have no impact with adherence to and/or compliance with the existing regulatory framework, and GPU goals and policies.

As detailed previously in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, the Cultural Resources Assessment included a field survey of the entire Project site and did not identify any historic or prehistoric cultural resources on the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts to historic resources that are listed or eligible for listing.

As such, the Project would result in no new impacts related to historic resources that are listed or eligible for listing and have cultural value to a California Native American tribe. Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR.
b) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.18-11 and was determined to have no impact with adherence to and/or compliance with the existing regulatory framework including GPU goals and policies.

Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of the CEQA process and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21084.2). AB 52 requires that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review evaluate, just as they do for other historical and archeological resources, a project’s potential impact to a tribal cultural resource. In addition, AB 52 requires that lead agencies, upon request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR for a project. AB 52 does not apply to a Notice of Exemption or Addendum; and therefore, is not required for the Project.

A SLF search from the NAHC was received on December 5, 2023, stating the results of the SLF search were negative for known tribal cultural resources or sacred lands within one mile of the Project site. Additionally, the NAHC provided contact information for 14 tribes and tribal representatives that may have knowledge of cultural resources in the Project area and to be included in outreach efforts. Because AB 52 does not apply to CEQA Streamlining, no letters were sent to the identified tribes and tribal contacts. However, consistent with GPU Action RM-3f, if any cultural resources are inadvertently discovered, all construction work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall stop, and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine if further mitigation measures are warranted. Additionally, consistent with GPU Action RM-3g, if human remains are discovered during ground disturbing activities, the City shall halt excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the remains are of Native American origin, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
157
of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the descendants from the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation to the landowner or the persons responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98, or the Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being granted access to the site. Therefore, the Project would no result in new or increased impacts related to landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Tribal Cultural Resources, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU EIR would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

GPU Goals, Policies & Actions
Applicable GPU policies and actions related to tribal cultural resources include the following:

Resource Management Element
Policy RM-3.1: Preservation. Protect areas containing significant historic, archaeological, and paleontologic resources, as defined by the California Public Resources Code.

Action RM-3f: The City shall make provisions for archeological resources accidentally discovered during construction for projects where the City has approval authority over the project. These provisions shall include The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
158
an immediate evaluation of the find and contingency funding and time allotment sufficient to allow for the recovery of the archeological resource or implement measures to avoid disturbing the resource if the archeological resource is determined to be unique.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None applicable to this Project.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
159

5.19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Project
Peculiar
Impact that
is not
Substantial
ly
Mitigated
by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed
in the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the Project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the Project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the Project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State
or local standards or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed impacts related to water supply and infrastructure on pages 5.19-35 through 5.19-

54. The GPU EIR determined implementation and buildout of the GPU would result in population and employment growth within the City, and thus, an overall increase in demand on water supply, which would necessitate construction of future water supply infrastructure. All water infrastructure construction activities associated with future development would be subject to compliance with existing local, State, and federal laws, ordinances, and regulations, which would ensure impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. The City would continue to coordinate with EMWD to ensure adequate water distribution facilities are available The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
160
to serve future development. Furthermore, these future water facilities would be subject to General Plan Update policies and actions intended to protect the environment. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined implementation of existing regulations and GPU policies and actions would reduce impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities to a level that is less than significant.

Similarly to water needs, the GPU EIR also determined implementation of the GPU would result in an increase in demand on the existing sewer system due to increased sewage flows. Future developments would be reviewed by the City, during site plan review in order to determine if sufficient local and trunk sewer capacity exists to serve the specific development, in accordance with SJDC Chapter 17.630, Site Plan and Design Review. Additionally, the GPU includes policies, and actions to ensure adequate wastewater services and facilities and that potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of new or expanded infrastructure would be reduced. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined implementation of existing regulations and GPU policies and actions would reduce impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities to a level that is less than significant.

The GPU EIR also determined development under the GPU would result in increased areas of impervious surfaces throughout the City, resulting in the need for additional or expanded stormwater drainage, conveyance and retention infrastructure. Stormwater drainage and conveyance facilities would be evaluated at the project‐level in association with subsequent development projects. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, SJMC, and other applicable regulations. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

Therefore, the GPU EIR determined implementation of existing regulations and GPU policies and actions would reduce impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater facilities to a level that is less than significant.

The GPU EIR determined future development and growth under the GPU would require increased electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications services, potentially resulting in the new construction or relocation of facilities. However, future projects would undergo separate environmental review related to the construction and operation of new electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure. Additionally, future implementing projects under the GPU would have to coordinate with each utility provider to establish service, provide any necessary extensions of facilities, and comply with regulations in existence at that time. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, SJMC, and other applicable regulations. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined implementation of existing regulations and GPU policies and actions would reduce impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities to a level that is less than significant.

The GPU is expected to result in increased population and employment growth within the City, and a corresponding increase in the demand for additional water and wastewater supplies. Future development projects would undergo separate environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time to ensure adequate water supply and wastewater treatment capacity exists. The GPU EIR determined that through implementation of existing federal, State, and local regulations and the GPU goals, policies, and actions, the environmental impacts to water supplies and wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant.

The GPU EIR determined that the City’s projected increase in solid waste generation associated with 2040 buildout under the GPU is within the permitted capacity of both the Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill and El Sobrante Landfill. In addition, all future development would be required to comply with the mandatory commercial and multifamily recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341, thus reducing the amount of landfill waste. Furthermore, the GPU goals, policies, and actions that would reduce the demand for solid waste The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
161
disposal. Therefore, through the implementation of existing regulations and the GPU policies and actions, the GPU EIR determined impacts to solid waste disposal service would be less than significant.

Chapter 8.32 of the SJMC establishes mandatory solid waste and recycling collection to comply with the requirements of AB 939 and AB 341. The City has also established disposal and mandatory recycling requirements for commercial facilities, single family residential and multifamily residential premises to comply with State law diversion requirements. Thus, through the implementation of existing regulations and the GPU policies and actions, future development implemented by the GPU would continue to comply with management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste and impacts would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a) Require or result in the construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.19-35 through 5.19-42 and was determined to have a less than significant impact.

Water
The Project site is within an area that is currently served by the EMWD. The Project would install new onsite water lines which would connect to the existing 12-inch water line in Esplanade Avenue and the existing 8- inch water line in Commonwealth Avenue. The new onsite water system would convey water supplies to the proposed residential units and landscaping through plumbing/landscaping fixtures that are compliant with the CalGreen Plumbing Code for efficient use of water.

The proposed Project would continue to receive water supplies through the existing water lines located within the Esplanade Avenue and Commonwealth Avenue rights-of-way that have the capacity to provide the increased water supplies needed to serve the proposed Project, and no expansions of the water pipelines that convey water to the Project site would be required. Installation of the new water distribution lines would only serve the proposed Project and would not provide new water supplies to any off-site areas.

The construction activities related to the onsite water infrastructure that would be needed to serve the proposed Project is included as part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this document. For example, analysis of construction emissions from excavation and installation of the water infrastructure is included in Sections 5.3, Air Quality and 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.

Wastewater
The Project includes installation of onsite sewer lines that would connect to the existing 8-inch sewer lines within Esplanade Avenue. The existing sewer lines would accommodate development of the Project site and would not require expansion to serve the proposed Project. The construction activities related to installation of the onsite sewer infrastructure that would serve the proposed Project, is included as part of the proposed Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this document. For example, analysis of construction emissions for excavation and installation of the sewer infrastructure is included in Section 5.3, Air Quality and 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities are evaluated in Section 5.13, Noise. As the proposed Project includes facilities to serve the proposed development, it would not result in the need for construction of other new wastewater facilities The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
162
or expansions, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no new or increased impact would occur.

Stormwater
The proposed Project would install an infiltration basin in the northwest portion of the site to capture and treat stormwater flows. Treated stormwater captured in the infiltration basin would exit the site through storm water drains to the proposed 24-inch diameter storm drain line in Esplanade Avenue that would extend 1,300 linear feet to the west to the RCFCD storm drain Line F in San Jacinto Avenue. As discussed above in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, due to the appropriate sizing of the onsite drainage features and detention basin, as shown in the Project’s Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix I) and Hydrology Report (Appendix H), as ensured through the Project permitting process, operation of the proposed Project would not substantially increase stormwater runoff. In addition, the impacts related to construction of the stormwater infrastructure is considered part of the impacts of the proposed Project as a whole and are analyzed throughout the various sections of this document. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the infiltration basin and storm drain line are analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation Sections. Thus, no new or increased impacts would result.

Electric Power
The Project includes installation of solar PV panels on the rooftops of each residence and would meet all other Title 24 Part 6 requirements related to electric power. In addition, the Project would connect to the existing Southern California Edison electrical distribution facilities that are adjacent to the Project site and would not require the construction of new electrical facilities.

Natural Gas
The Project would install onsite gas service infrastructure on the site and would connect to the existing Southern California Gas natural gas distribution facilities that are adjacent to the Project site. The Project site and would not require the construction of new electrical facilities.

Telecommunications
The proposed Project would require a connection to telecommunication services, such as wireless internet service and phone service. This can be accomplished through connection to existing services that are available to the developer at the Project site. There are two main telecommunications providers in the area: Spectrum and Frontier, one of which would provide service to the Project.

The Project would result in no new impacts related to construction of new or expanded utilities that could result in significant environmental effects. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.19-42 through 5.119-47 and was determined to be less than significant.

As discussed above, the EMWD would supply water to Project site. EMWD gets its water supplies from recycled water, potable groundwater, desalinated groundwater and imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California (EMWD, 2021). Pursuant to Senate Bill 610 and the GPU EIR, a Water Supply Assessment, which documents the adequacy of the water supply to serve a project over a defined period of time under average year, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions, is required The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
163
for residential projects that propose 500 units or more. Because the proposed Project is proposing fewer than 500 units, a Water Supply Assessment is not required.

The Water Supply Reliability Assessment within the EMWD Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) concludes that EMWD has adequate supplies to meet projected demands from 2020 to 2045 under multiple dry year conditions (EMWD, 2021). The water supply and water demand provided in the UWMP is based on local growth projections provided in the City of San Jacinto General Plan. The proposed Project would be consistent with the City of Jacinto General Plan and within the allowable density per the zoning of the site. Therefore, the water demands for the Project would be accounted for in the 2020-2045 UWMP. The UWMP identifies that there would be increased water supplies to account for future growth within the EMWD service area and that there would be adequate water supplies for normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. Therefore, the supply would meet the demand of the Project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years and no new or increased impacts related to water supply would not occur. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.19-47 through 5.19-49 and was determined to be less than significant.

The City of San Jacinto is responsible for collecting, treating, and safely disposing of, or recycling wastewater and its residuals for the Project site. According to the GPU EIR, the current wastewater flow of the San Jacinto Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RWRF) is 14 million gallons per day (MGD) and the maximum capacity of the treatment facility is 27 MGD (City of San Jacinto, 2022a; Eastern Municipal Water District, 2021). The GPU EIR estimates that the per capita wastewater generation is 43 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). As described previously in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, buildout of the Project is estimated to generate 249 units and 847 residents. As such, it is estimated that the proposed Project would generate approximately 36,421 gallons of wastewater per day, which is within the capacity of the San Jacinto Valley RWRF. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater infrastructure would be less than significant. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.19-49 through 5.19-52 and was determined to be less than significant.

The proposed Project would generate solid waste from construction activities as well as during operation. All solid waste-generating activities within the City are subject to the requirements set forth in the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste. According to the GPU EIR, 95 percent of solid waste disposal from the City of San Jacinto in 2019 went to two waste disposal facilities:

Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill and El Sobrante Landfill. Solid waste generated at the Project site would be disposed of at one or both of these landfills, described below. • Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill is permitted to collect daily throughput of 5,000 tons of solid waste and is permitted to operate until 2032 (CalRecycle, 2024a). As of June 2024, Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill had an average disposal of 1,837 tons per day and an average remaining capacity of 3,163 tons per day (Riverside County Department of Waste Services, 2024a).

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
164
• El Sobrante Landfill is permitted to collect daily throughput of 16,054 tons of solid waste and is permitted to operate until 2051 (CalRecycle, 2024b). As of June 2024, El Sobrante Landfill had an average disposal of 8,509 tons per day and an average remaining capacity of 7,545 tons per day (Riverside County Department of Waste Services, 2024b).

According to the California Department of Resources and Recycling (CalRecycle) Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Trend Profile for the City of San Jacinto (2022), San Jacinto residents generated an average of about 5.2 pounds of waste per resident per day in 2022 (CalRecycle, 2024c). Using this figure, it is estimated that the 847 residents generated by the Project would generate approximately 4,404.4 pounds of solid waste per day, or 803.8 tons per year (5.2 x 847 x 365 = 1,607,606 pounds per year / 2,000 = 803.8 tons per year). However, at least 75 percent of the solid waste is required by AB 341 to be recycled, which would reduce the volume of landfilled solid waste to approximately 3.87 tons per week or 201 tons per year. Thus, the average daily remaining capacities of Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill and El Sobrante Landfill would be able to accommodate the additional waste produced by operation of the proposed Project and would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR. e) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on pages 5.19-52 through 5.19-54 and was determined to be less than significant.

As discussed above, the Project would be anticipated to result in 3.87 tons of solid waste per week or 201 tons per year. All solid waste-generating activities within the City are subject to the requirements set forth in Section 5.408.1 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code that requires demolition and construction activities to recycle or reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and AB 341 that requires diversion of a minimum of 75 percent of operational solid waste.

The proposed Project would comply with all standards related to solid waste diversion, reduction, and recycling during Project construction and operation. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to conflicts with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations pertaining to solid waste. The Project would result in no new or increased impacts. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Utilities and Service Systems, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU EIR would be required because Project specific impacts would be less than significant.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None applicable to this Project.

GPU Goals, Policies & Actions
Applicable GPU policies and actions related to utilities and service systems include the following:

Land Use Element
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
165
Policy LU‐2.1: Plan for New Development. Ensure that new development corresponds to the provision of infrastructure, public services, and community facilities and that new development funds and constructs its fair share of improvements in accordance with City requirements.

Resource Management Element
Goal RM‐2: Water Resources. A community that protects and conserves limited water resources.

Policy RM‐2.1: Regional Cooperation. Cooperate with federal, State, and county governments, and other agencies on the maintenance and improvement of the quality and quantity of local and regional groundwater resources.

Policy RM‐2.3: Conservation. Promote residential, commercial, and institutional water conservation strategies using multiple innovative strategies and contemporary best practices.

Action RM‐2e: Through the development review process, require that sufficient water supply and water infrastructure capacity is available to serve the development prior to approval of the project, pursuant to Water Code Section 10910 and Government Code Section 66473.7.

Action RM‐2f: Whenever feasible, incorporate improved open space and preservation areas and quasi‐ active recreation facilities in areas used for ground water recharge and/or drainage detention.

Policy RM‐5.4: Energy‐Efficient Materials. Promote the use of energy‐efficient materials, equipment, and design in public and private facilities and infrastructure.

Policy RM‐9.3: Fair Share. Ensure that all new development provides for and funds its fair share of the costs for the expansion of public infrastructure and services, recreational amenities, and facilities.

Action RM‐9a: Continue to cooperate with the water districts to ensure adequate water supply and sewage treatment facilities are provided and maintained in the community. Specifically, the City should:
• During the processing of development proposals, ensure the water districts are consulted regarding the potential impact of the project on water supplies and sewage treatment facilities. When requested by the district or City Engineer, require proposed developments to include a water quality assessment as part of the application materials, and implement identified mitigation measures during construction and development.
• Ensure the project applicant has paid the required fees prior to occupancy of any new development. • Require water conservation devices and xeriscape water efficient landscaping in new public and private development and redevelopment projects.

Policy RM‐10.1: Compliance with State Legislation. Comply with local, regional and State regulations regarding waste diversion, source reduction, recycling, and composting.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None applicable to this Project.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
166

5.20. WILDFIRE
Project
Peculiar
Impact that
is not
Substantiall
y Mitigated
by
Uniformly
Applied
Policies
Significant
Impact not
Analyzed
as
Significant
in the Prior
EIR
Potentially
Significant
Offsite or
Cumulative
Impact not
Discussed in
the prior
EIR
Adverse
Impact
More
Severe
based on
Substantial
New
Information
No New
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones, would the
Project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose Project occupants
to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated infrastructure
(such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the GPU EIR
The GPU EIR discussed wildfire impacts throughout the document including on pages 5.20-10 through 5.20- 26 and determined impacts would be less than significant. As part of the site plan and design review process (SJDC Chapter 17.630), future development projects would be reviewed for adequate infrastructure and access as well as consistency with adopted emergency and evacuation plans among many other environmental issues in order to ensure the safety of City residents and the physical environment. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined the GPU would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
167
The GPU EIR determined that potential development within or near fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ), would be required to comply with design and development standards set forth by the SJDC and SJMC, including SJDC Chapter 17.300.050, which addresses development of hillsides and requires preparation of fire management plans. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined implementation of the applicable GPU goals, policies, implementation plans, and compliance to development and fire codes, would reduce impacts related to exposing project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire to be less than significant in this regard.

The GPU EIR determined that future development anticipated by the GPU would require the construction and installation of infrastructure, including roads water and sewer and power lines to serve increased growth and development. However, all future development projects would be required to be consistent with the SJMC standards related to development in high fire hazard areas. Additionally, future development of utility infrastructure would be subject to the requirements established in Public Resources Code Section 4292, which requires clearing of flammable fuels for a minimum 10-foot radius from the outer circumference of poles and towers; and Section 4293, which sets basic requirements for clearances around electrical conductors. Furthermore, future development would be required to meet vegetation clearance requirements outlined in Title 14, Section 1104.1(d) of the California Code of Regulations for single overhead facilities.

Implementation of the GPU policies and actions, combined with local and State requirements, would ensure that potential wildland fire hazards would not be exacerbated by local infrastructure, and this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.

The GPU EIR determined implementation of the GPU would not result in significant impacts related to exposing 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. All future developments located in or adjacent to wildfire prone areas (i.e., naturally vegetated hillsides) would be required to prepare a fire management plan pursuant to SJDC Section 17.300.050. The fire management plan would be reviewed by RCFD who may require fire protection measures (e.g., landscape or open space buffers), maintenance programs for weed and vegetation abatement, installation of fire-resistant plants, and the use of noncombustible building materials, including roofing. Additionally, SJMC Chapter 15.28 regulates development of hillside areas by relating the number and distribution of dwelling units and other buildings to the topography to prevent disfigurement of the terrain through extensive cut and fill. Future site-specific development would be also required to comply with SJMC Chapter 15.40, Floodplain Management, which provides land use and development regulations to all land within flood prone, mudslide (i.e., mudflow), or flood-related erosion areas, including City review of development permits to ensure adherence to federal, State, and local flood-related regulations as well as additional standards applicable to all areas of special flood hazards in the City. drainage. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that through compliance with local, State, and federal regulations, and compliance with GPU goals and policies, potential exposure of people or structures to significant risks resulting from runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes would be less than significant.

Project-Specific Impacts
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated in the GPU EIR on page 5.20-10 and was determined to have a less than significant impact with applicable building codes (i.e., City Building Code, California Building Standards Code), GPU goals and policies, and the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

According to the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone map, and GPU EIR Figure 5.20-1, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, the Project site not located within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (CAL FIRE, 2024; City of San Jacinto, July 2022). The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. Direct access to the Project The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
168
site would be provided via two driveways, one on East Esplanade Avenue and one of Commonwealth Avenue. The Project is required to design and construct internal access and provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) in conformance with the SJMC, and Riverside County Fire Department would review the development plans prior to approval to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9, included in the SJMC (Chapter 8.16, Fire Code). As a result, the proposed Project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and would not result in new impacts. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to, pollution concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No New Impact. This topic is evaluated on GPU EIR page 5.20-14. As described in the previous response, the Project site is not located within a SRA or a VHFHSZ. The Project site is relatively flat with a gentle slope.

The areas within the Project’s vicinity also do not contain hillsides or other factors that could exacerbate wildfire risks. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or increased impacts related to exposure of people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No New Impact. This topic is evaluated on GPU EIR page 5.20-17. As described in the previous responses, the Project site is not within a SRA or a VHFHSZ. The Project site is located within an urbanized area within the City of San Jacinto. The Project does not involve any new infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risks or result in other impacts to the environment. Therefore, the Project would result in no new or increased impacts. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No New Impact. This topic was evaluated on GPU EIR page 5.20-21. As described in the previous responses, the Project site is not within a SRA or VHFHSZ. As discussed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would not result in changes to drainage. Also as discussed in Section 5. 7, Geology and Soils, the Project site is relatively flat and is not susceptible to landslides. Likewise, areas adjacent to the Project site are relatively flat urban sites that do not contain hillsides or other factors that would expose people or structures to flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. The Project would not generate slopes and would connect to existing drainage facilities. Therefore, the Project would result in no new or increased impacts related to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR.

Conclusion
With regards to the issue area of Wildfire, the following findings can be made:

1. No peculiar impacts to the Project or its site have been identified.

2. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which were not discussed by the GPU EIR.

3. No substantial new information has been identified which results in an impact which is more severe than anticipated by the GPU EIR.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
169

4. No mitigation measures contained within the GPU EIR would be required because the Project would result in no new impacts.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards (DP/S) None applicable to this Project.

GPU Goals, Policies & Actions
None applicable to this Project.

GPU EIR Mitigation Measures
None applicable to this Project.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
170

6. REFERENCES
AES Due Diligence, Inc. (March 23, 2023). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Appendix G.

BFSA Environmental Services. (December 1, 2023a). A Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project. Appendix D.
____. (December 1, 2023b). Paleontological Assessment for the Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project.

Appendix F.

Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering. (January 16, 2024). Water Quality Management Plan. Appendix I.

California Department of Conservation. (2022). Important Farmland Finder Mapping. Retrieved August 27, 2024, from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
California Department of Education. (2024). 2023-24 Enrollment by Grade San Jacinto Unified Report (33- 67249).
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrdLevels.aspx?cds=3367249&agglevel=district &year=2023-24
California Department of Finance. (May 2024). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2024. Retrieved August 24, 2024, from https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimatesfor-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/ California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). (2022). Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps.

Retrieved August 24, 2024, from : https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfirepreparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps-2022 Caltrans. (2018). State Scenic Highway Map. Retrieved October 10, 2024, from https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lapliv-i-scenic-highways CalRecycle. (2024a). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details - Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill (33-AA-0007).

Retrieved July 26, 2024, from
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2246?siteID=2368 ____. (2024b). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details - El Sobrante Landfill (33-AA-0217). Retrieved July 26, 2024, from https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2280?siteID=2402 ____. (2024c). Jurisdiction Review Reports. Retrieved July 26, 2024, from https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports California Department of Transportation. (2018). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Retrieved August 27, 2024, from
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805 7116f1aacaa
City of San Jacinto. (2023). Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2023-2024. Retrieved October 11, 2024, from https://www.sanjacintoca.gov/city_departments/finance
____. (November 15, 2022a). Envision San Jacinto – General Plan 2040 Policy Document. Retrieved August 27, 2024, from https://sanjacinto.generalplan.org/documents-amp-maps The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
171
____. (November 15, 2022b). City of San Jacinto General Plan Update Figure LU-2. General Plan Land Use Map. Retrieved October 10, 2024, from
https://sanjacinto.generalplan.org/s/SJC_2040GenPlanLUMap_FigLU-2_ADOPTED_221115.pdf ____. (November 15, 2022c). Zoning Map 2022. Retrieved October 10, 2024, from https://sanjacinto.generalplan.org/s/SJC_ZoningMap_11x17_ADOPTED_221115.pdf ____. (July 2022). Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report for the San Jacinto General Plan Update (SCH: 2020120312). Retrieved August 27, 2024, from
https://sanjacinto.generalplan.org/documents-amp-maps
____. (December 2012). San Jacinto Development Code as Amended Through August 2023. Retrieved August 27, 2024, from https://www.sanjacintoca.gov/city_departments/communitydevelopment/planning/zoning__development_code ____. (December 6, 2022). San Jacinto Municipal Code. Retrieved August 27, 2024, from https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanJacinto.

Eastern Municipal Water District. (January 2021). San Jacinto Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility.

Retrieved October 10, 2024, from https://www.emwd.org/what-we-do/wastewater-service ____. (July 1, 2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Retrieved October 10, 2024, from https://www.emwd.org/what-we-do/water-supply/urban-water-management-plan EPD Solutions, Inc. (October 14, 2024). Supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Memorandum for the Required Storm Drain Improvements for the “Esplanade Collection” Project, San Jacinto. Appendix B.
____. (August 23, 2024). VMT Analysis. Appendix K.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (April 19, 2017). Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06065C1490H. Retrieved August 27, 2024, from
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=1695%20S%20San%20Jacinto%20Ave%2 C%20San%20Jacinto%2C%20CA%2092583
Geotek, Inc. (May 11, 2023). Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation Proposed Single-Family Residential Development Assessor’s Parcel Number 439-180-011. Appendix E.

Jacobs. August 2022. Biological Resources Assessment, Jurisdictional Delineation Report & MSHCP Consistency Analysis. Appendix C.

Koppel & Gruber Public Finance. (April 18, 2024). San Jacinto Unified School District 2024 Fee Justification Study.

LSA. August 2, 2024. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum for the proposed Hewitt and Esplanade Residential Project, San Jacinto, California. Appendix A.

Riverside Airport Land Use Commission. (February 9, 2017). Hemet-Ryan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Retrieved August 20, 2024, from https://rcaluc.org/current-compatibility-plans Riverside County Department of Waste Resources. (July 20, 2024a). Daily Landfilled In/Out-of-County Tonnage Site #31 Lamb Canyon.

Riverside County Department of Waste Resources. (July 20, 2024b). Daily Landfilled In/Out-of-County Tonnage Site #8 El Sobrante.

The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
172
Robert M. Beers. (December 27, 2023). Preliminary Hydrology Report for TTM 38872. Appendix H.

San Jacinto Unified School District. (2024a). Schools.
https://www.sanjacinto.k12.ca.us/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=365627&type=d&pREC_ID= 2423780
San Jacinto Unified School District. (2024b). Developer Information. https://www.sanjacinto.k12.ca.us/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=330831&type=d&pREC_ID= 757853
Vista Environmental. (August 19, 2024). Noise Impact Analysis. Appendix J.

Western Riverside Council of Governments. February 2022. Subregional Climate Action Plan. Retrieved August 27, 2024, from https://wrcog.us/172/Planning
The Esplanade Collection
City of San Jacinto Community Plan Exemption Checklist
173
End of document.

San Jacinto City CouncilNovember 19, 2024

San Jacinto City Council
November 19, 2024