Agenda packet — San Jacinto City Council, February 4, 2025 (part 3 of 10)

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
H. This permit shall run with the land associated to the project/permit and continues to be valid upon change of ownership. All applicable conditions of approval shall continue to apply with a change in property ownership.

I. The applicant shall be subject to all applicable development fees at the rate in effect at the time of building permit application unless the rate is set in accordance with SB 330. Such fees may include, but not be limited to Development Impact Fees, Park Fees, School Fees, Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees, and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Fees.

J. The applicant is advised that the residential uses in which this Project is granted cannot be legally conducted on the subject property until all conditions of approval of this project have been met to the satisfaction of the Planning Department.

K. Signs shall be permitted in accordance with Chapter 17.335 – Sign Regulations of the Development Code. Any signs, including exterior-mounted, monument, and window signs, shall be subject to separate review and assessment. A separate sign application, including fees and additional sets of plans, will be necessary prior to sign permit issuance.

L. The City shall have the right to inspect the site and facilities to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval and to recover its actual costs related to such inspections from the property owner or tenant.

M. During the construction phase of the project, all lumber scraps, combustible materials, and other debris be picked up daily, or more often as required by the Building and Safety Division.

N. In the event of a conflict between any conditions for this approval, the most restrictive regulations shall apply.

O. All existing and new utilities adjacent to and on the Project site shall be located underground as per City of San Jacinto Municipal Code Section 15.32.

P. The contractor shall comply with the following best practices during the construction phase of the development. a. The erection (including excavation), demolition, alteration or repair of any building shall occur between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays, except when such work complies with the terms of a temporary use permit which may be issued by the community development director or his or her designee, upon a showing of sufficient need due to hot or inclement weather, or the use of an unusually long process material, or other circumstances of unusual and compelling nature.

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 4 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
b. During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for the project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible. c. During the entire active construction period, stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and they shall be incorporated to the extent feasible. d. Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive use areas. Avoid soil hauling through residential areas. e. Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on‐site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
f. Equipment shall be maintained and operated such that loads are secured from rattling or banging.

Q. A copy of all pages of these Conditions shall be included in the construction drawing packages for grading plans and building permits, including landscaping permits.

R. During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise‐producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back‐up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back‐up alarms and replace them with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.

S. A grading permit shall be obtained from the City of San Jacinto prior to the commencement of any grading outside of the Citymaintained Road right-of-way.

T. 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 to eliminate spillover illumination or glare beyond the property line or upward into the sky.

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 5 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
U. An SB-330 Preliminary Development Application was submitted for the project on June 19, 2024.

V. Phasing of development including parks, roads and basins shall be completed in accordance with the Planned Development Permit and Conditions of Approval.

Engineering Department General Requirements & Information W. With respect to the Conditions of Approval for the above referenced project, the City of San Jacinto requires that the developer provide street improvements and/or road dedication in accordance with the City of San Jacinto Municipal Code Title 12 and the Conditions of Approval. It is understood that the site plan and the map correctly show all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, rights-of-way, and drainage course with appropriate Q’s and that their omission may require the map to be resubmitted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the following conditions are essential parts and requirements occurring in one condition is as binding as though the condition occurs in all conditions. The conditions are intended to be complimentary and to describe the conditions for a complete design of the improvements. Unless otherwise noted, all offsite improvements as conditioned shall be installed prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the City Engineer’s office.

X. The project grading shall be in a manner to perpetuate existing natural drainage patterns. Any deviation from this, concentration or increase in runoff must have approval of adjacent property owners and City Engineer. The developer/property owner shall accept the offsite runoff and convey it to an acceptable outlet.

Y. Prior to commencement of any construction or installation of fencing in public rights-of-way, an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer’s office.

Z. Drainage facilities (i.e. catch basins, etc.) with sump conditions shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flows.

Secondary emergency escapes shall also be provided.

AA.The developer/property owner shall secure the City’s and appropriate agencies’ clearances and approvals of the improvement plans.

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 6 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
BB. In the event of a conflict between any conditions stated below, those imposed by the Planning Department and RCFC, and requirements as identified in the approved Traffic Impact Analysis, the most stringent in the opinion of the City shall prevail.

Fire Department General Requirements & Information
CC. All required Fire Department vehicle access roads shall be maintained in a passable condition at all times for emergency Fire Department use. The Fire Department shall approve Gates or other obstructions before construction.

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 7 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Timing Responsible
Department Prior to Recordation of the Final Map Met?
Prior to
Recordation Engineering
1) A final map shall be filed for review and approval by the City Engineer. After recordation, a digital (pdf) copy of the recorded map shall be submitted to the Engineering Department.
☐
Prior to
Recordation Engineering
2) The developer/property owner shall have approved improvement plans, secured offsite rights of way, executed subdivision agreement, and posted security for the public improvements.
☐
Prior to
Recordation Engineering
3) .Lyon Avenue is classified as a (Major Highway 112'/76') per the General Plan.

A 30-foot-half-width right-of-way is currently dedicated on Lyon Avenue along the property frontage (Remainder Parcel); the applicant/property owner shall dedicate the required additional 26-feet of right-of-way ☐
Prior to
Recordation Engineering
4) De Anza Drive is classified as a (Collector 78’/40’) per the General Plan.

Therefore, the developer/property owner shall dedicate 78 feet of right-of-way from Lyon Avenue to the extension of Ranch View Lane.

The dedication shall be offered to the public in perpetuity and shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer.
☐
Prior to
Recordation Engineering
5) Dedicate 60-foot-full-width right-of-way on all interior streets – (Local 60'/40') – to include installation of 40-feet asphalt paving (using TI of 5.5 and PG 64-10), streetlights, sidewalk, curb, and gutter at 20-feet on both sides of centerline, per City of San Jacinto, County of Riverside and Caltrans Standards. ☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 8 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Timing Responsible
Department Prior to Recordation of the Final Map Met?
Prior to
Recordation Engineering
6) All easements and/or rights-of-way shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agencies and shall continue in force until the City or the appropriate agency accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer. ☐
Prior to
Recordation Engineering
7) In the event offsite property is required to complete the project’s improvements, the developer/property owner shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required offsite property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer/property owner shall, prior to submittal of the Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements. The agreement shall provide for payment by the developer/property owner of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the offsite property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the developer/property owner (at developer/property owner cost). The appraiser shall be approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. ☐
Prior to
Recordation Engineering
8) The following statement shall be added to the Final Map:

NOTICE OF DRAINAGE FEES Notice is hereby given that this property is located within the San Jacinto Valley Area Drainage Plan which was adopted by the City of San Jacinto pursuant to Ordinance 13-01 and Section 66001, et seq, of the Government Code and that said property is subject to fees for said drainage area. Notice is further given that, pursuant to Ordinance 13-01, payment of the drainage fees shall be paid to the City of San Jacinto prior to issuance of the building permit for a parcel, and that the property owner shall pay the fee required at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit.
☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 9 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Timing Responsible
Department Prior to Recordation of the Final Map Met?
Prior to
Recordation Engineering
9) The developer/property owner shall submit the following to the City Engineer for review and approval:
a. Street Improvement Plans
b. Street Light Plans prepared by an registered Electrical Engineer c. Signing and Striping, Traffic Signal Plans as appropriate The design shall comply with Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Fire Department, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCD), Riverside County Transportation Department, Caltrans, City of San Jacinto and ADA most recent standards, criteria, and requirements and in effect at the time of construction and shall be coordinated with the approved plans of the adjacent developments. ☐
Prior to
Recordation Engineering
10) The developer/property owner shall sign the consent and waiver form to join the City’s Lighting and Landscape Districts and City’s Flood Control District as appropriate. The proposed streetlights and traffic signals shall be maintained by the City and maintenance cost paid by the developer/property owner through the said annexation.
☐
Prior to
Recordation Engineering
11) Lot G contains an EMWD easement for sewer and reclaimed water facilities.

The fee ownership for Lot G shall be transferred to a suitable entity as determined by the City Engineer.
☐
Prior to
Recordation
Special
Districts
12) The project is required to establish a funding mechanism for the maintenance of public improvements.
a. Annexation into the Public Facilities Maintenance Community Facilities District (CFD 2020-1) is an option to fulfill the funding requirement for maintenance of public improvements. If a property owner opts to annex ☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 10 of 39 ends

Prior to
Recordation
Special
Districts
13) The project is required to establish a funding mechanism for all portions of the subdivision, for Public Safety.
a. As an option to fulfill the funding requirement, to fulfill the funding requirement for public safety services the property owner may annex into the Community Services District (CFD 2003-1). Funding of services under the City’s CFDs will consist of an annual assessment based on the costs of such services, as determined by a City’s Engineer’s Estimate and established by tax zone.
☐
Timing Responsible
Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit Met?
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Engineering
14)The developer/property owner shall have approved grading and drainage improvement plans, executed grading agreement as directed by the City Engineer, and posted securities.
☐
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Engineering
15)The developer/property owner shall submit the following plans and reports to the City Engineer for review and approval:
a) Onsite Grading and Erosion Control Plans – Plans shall show the approved WDID No.
b) Drainage Improvement Plans
c) Hydrology and Hydraulic calculations and analysis
☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 11 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Timing Responsible
Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit Met?
d) Geotechnical Report
e) Final WQMP (for reference)
The design of the improvements shall comply with EMWD, Fire Department, RCFCD, Riverside County Transportation Department, Caltrans, City of San Jacinto and ADA most recent standards, criteria, and requirements and in effect at the time of plan approval and shall be coordinated with the approved plans of the adjacent developments.

Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning 16)A copy of all pages of these Conditions shall be included in the construction drawing packages for grading plans. ☐
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning
17)The contractor shall provide a letter agreeing to follow the City’s General Plan and Noise Ordinance. In addition, the letter shall indicate the contractor shall implement the following best practices during the construction phase of the development.
i. Limit construction to the daytime hours (6:00 AM to 7:00 PM) and prohibit construction on Sundays and holidays.
ii. At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction on days and hours, as well as telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representative that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report to the City. iii. During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for the project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine ☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 12 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Timing Responsible
Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit Met?
enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
iv. During the entire active construction period, stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and they shall be incorporated to the extent feasible.
v. Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive use areas.

Avoid soil hauling through residential areas.
vi. Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on‐site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
vii. During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise‐producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back‐up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level, or switch off back‐up alarms and replace them with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and law
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Building &
Safety /
Planning
18) No radios or other sound equipment shall be used at this site unless required for emergency response by the contractor. ☐
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Building &
Safety /
Planning
19) The City shall require the developer to require that all construction equipment be operated with mandated noise control equipment (mufflers or silencers).

Enforcement will be accomplished by random field inspections by applicant personnel during construction activities.
☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 13 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Timing Responsible
Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit Met?
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Building &
Safety /
Planning
20) The City shall require the developer to establish a noise complaint response program and shall respond to any noise complaints received for this Project by measuring noise levels at the affected receptor site. If the noise level exceeds an Ldn of 60 dBA exterior or an Ldn of 45 dBA interior at the receptor, the developer will implement adequate measures (which may include portable sound attenuation walls, use of quieter equipment, shift of construction schedule to avoid the presence of sensitive receptors, etc.) to reduce noise levels to the greatest extent feasible.
☐
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Building &
Safety /
Planning
21) The development of the project site shall be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust. This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (human-made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or human-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust. Applicable dust suppression requirements from Rule 403 are summarized below.
a. Nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers shall be applied according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more).
b. Active sites shall be watered at least twice daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving.) c. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered, or at least 0.6 m (2 ft.) of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer) maintained in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114. d. Construction access roads shall be paved at least 30 m (100 ft.) onto the site from the main road.
☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 14 of 39 ends

Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the Planning Department.

Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Building &
Safety /
Planning
22) Stored backfill material shall be covered with water resistant material during periods of heavy precipitation to reduce the potential for rainfall erosion of stored backfill material. If covering is not feasible, then measures such as the use of straw bales or sandbags shall be used to capture and hold eroded material on the project site for future cleanup.
☐
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Building &
Safety /
Planning
23) All exposed, disturbed soil (trenches, stored backfill, etc.) shall be sprayed with water or soil binders twice a day, or more frequently if fugitive dust is observed migrating from the project site during future construction activities. ☐
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning
24) The developer/applicant or successor in interest shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger’s Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City for coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit.
☐
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning
25) CR-1. The developer shall enter into a Treatment and Disposition Agreement (TDA) with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians to address the treatment and disposition of archaeological/cultural that may be uncovered or otherwise discovered during ground-disturbing activities related to the project. The TDA may establish provisions for tribal monitors.
☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 15 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Timing Responsible
Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit Met?
In the event of a discovery that triggers the need for reburial, the precise location would be coordinated with Soboba and placed in an undisclosed location. There are several open-space areas within the development that could be suitable.

Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning
26) Should any paleontological resources be encountered during construction, earthmoving or grading activities in the immediate area of the finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection should be performed immediately by a qualified paleontologist. The responsibility for making this determination shall be with the City’s onsite inspector. The paleontological professional shall assess the find, determine its significance, and determine appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act that shall be implemented to minimize any impacts to a paleontological resource.

The grading contractor shall provide documentation that a paleontologist has been retained.
☐
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning
27) 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.
☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 16 of 39 ends

Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning
28) 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 it is unlawful to take any non-game migratory bird protected under the MBTA.
☐
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning
29) In the event of the discovery of human remains, the County coroner shall be immediately notified. If human remains of Native American origin are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall comply with the state relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). According to California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If the remains are ☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 17 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Timing Responsible
Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit Met?
determined to be Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians shall be notified, and appropriate measures provided by State law shall be implemented to determine the most likely living descendant(s). Disposition of the remains shall be overseen by the most likely living descendants to determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and any associated grave artifacts.

Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning
30) A grading permit shall be obtained from the City of San Jacinto prior to the commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained Road right-ofway. ☐
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning
31) The proposed site design BMPs selected for this project have been approved in concept. The project shall submit a Final WQMP, plans and details providing the elevations and slopes of the infiltration basin and other details for the proposed structural BMPs. The Public Works Department shall review and approve the Final WQMP document, plans and details.
☐
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning
32) The basin shall be designed per RCFCD and City of San Jacinto standards and design guidelines to include but not limited to slopes not to exceed 4:1, 10-footwide PCC paved access road along the top basin perimeter and PCC paved ramp to the bottom of the basin.
☐
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning
33) A Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted and approved, including a project description, and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The Water Quality Management Plan shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the City’s adopted requirements.
☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 18 of 39 ends

Removal of any trees, shrubs or any other potential nesting and foraging habitat for avian and/or sensitive avian species shall be conducted outside of the nesting season to the greatest extent practical. Alternatively, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted within three (3) days prior to the start of work if work is to occur during the nesting bird season (January 31 – September 15). The survey results shall be provided to the City’s Planning Department. The project applicant shall adhere to the following:
a. Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/ establishing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization measures.
☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 19 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Timing Responsible
Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit Met?
b. Pre-activity field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than three (3) days prior to the initiation of project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate.

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 20 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Timing Responsible
Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit Met?
onset of project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. If the biologist determines that such project activities may be causing an adverse reaction, the biologist shall adjust the buffer accordingly or implement alternative avoidance and minimization measures, such as redirecting or rescheduling construction or erecting sound barriers. The onsite biologist shall review and verify compliance with these nesting boundaries and shall verify the nesting effort has finished (i.e., the juveniles are surviving independent from the nest). All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is otherwise confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. Work can resume within the buffer area when no other active nests are found. If vegetation clearing is not initiated within 72 hours of a negative survey during the nesting season, the nesting survey must be repeated to confirm the absence of nesting birds. Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to City of San Jacinto Planning Division for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning
36) BIO-1b: To avoid project-related impacts to burrowing owls potentially occurring on or in the vicinity of the project site, a preconstruction presence/absence survey for burrowing owl in accordance with the March 2006 Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities including vegetation clearing, grubbing, tree removal, or site watering.

In addition, a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl shall be conducted ☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 21 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Timing Responsible
Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit Met?
within three (3) days prior to initiation of project activities and reported to the City of San Jacinto, and if an owl or owls are detected, reported to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). If no burrowing owls are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If ground-disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, another pre-construction survey shall again be necessary to minimize the possibility burrowing owl have colonized the site since it was last disturbed.

If burrowing owls are found, the same coordination described in this measure shall be necessary.

CDFW shall be sent written notification within 48 hours of detection of burrowing owls. The qualified biologist and project applicant shall coordinate with the City, CDFW, and USFWS to develop a Burrowing Owl
Plan, as described below, is to be approved by the City, CDFW, and USFWS prior to commencing project activities. Additionally, the Project applicant may be required to obtain a Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit, if it is deemed appropriate by CDFW. The project applicant shall implement the 2081 Incidental Take Permit if required.

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 22 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Timing Responsible
Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit Met?
funding of artificial burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) and management activities for relocated owls shall also be included in the Burrowing Owl Plan. The City shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.

If burrowing owls are observed within the project site during project implementation and construction, the project applicant shall notify CDFW immediately in writing within 48 hours of detection. If required based on the nature of the observance, a Burrowing Owl Plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval within two (2) weeks of detection and no project activity shall continue within 500 feet of the burrowing owls until CDFW approves the Burrowing Owl Plan. The City shall be responsible for implementing appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, including burrow avoidance, passive or active relocation, or other appropriate mitigation measures as identified in the Burrowing Owl Plan.

A final report shall be prepared by a qualified biologist documenting the results of the burrowing owl surveys and detailing any avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. The final report shall be submitted to the City and CDFW within 30 days of completion of the survey and burrowing owl monitoring for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning
37) CR-2: Prior to grading permit issuance, the developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist and a Tribal Monitor to prepare an Archaeological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (AMMP). The AMMP shall include the monitoring of all ground disturbing activities and shall include protocol for the mitigation and significance testing of inadvertent archaeological finds.
☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 23 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Timing Responsible
Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit Met?
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning
38) CR-3: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. If an archeological/cultural assessment demonstrates the potential for archeological/cultural resources to occur on the project site, tribal monitors, including either the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians or the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians will be present to monitor all grading, excavation, grounddisturbing activities, including further survey. Following the agreement of the City, the designated archeologist, the tribal monitor, and any applicable responsible or trustee agencies, grading, excavation, ground-disturbing activities shall be stopped temporarily and redirected in the event any archeological/cultural resources are discovered in order to evaluate the significance of any archeological/cultural resource discovered on the property. ☐
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning
39) CR-4: Treatment and Disposition of Remains: If human remains are encountered on the property, then the Riverside County Coroner's Office and consulting tribe(s), MUST be contacted within 24 hours of the find, and all work (within 50 feet of the find) halted until a clearance is given by that office and any other involved agencies. If it is determined that the remains might be those of a Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission, consulting tribe(s) and NAHC shall be notified within twenty-four (24) hours, and appropriate measures provided by State law shall be implemented. ☐
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning
40) CR-5: Non-disclosure of Location Reburials: It shall be the understanding by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of reburial of Native American human remains or cultural artifacts shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The coroner, parties, and the City, shall not withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254. ☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 24 of 39 ends

The Developer shall waive any and all claims to ownership of Native American ceremonial and cultural artifacts that may be found on the Project Site. Upon completion of authorized and mandatory archeological analysis, the Developer shall return said artifacts to the appropriate Tribe within a reasonable time period but not to exceed thirty (30) days.

The Tribe associated with the cultural items (artifacts) may wish to rebury the cultural items (artifacts) on or near, the site of discovery, in an area that shall not be subject to future subsurface disturbances. The developer shall accommodate onsite reburial in a location mutually agreed upon by the parties. ☐
Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning
42) PALEO-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Paleontological Resources: If paleontological resources are encountered during grading, ground disturbance activities shall cease so a qualified paleontological monitor can evaluate any paleontological resources exposed during the grading activity If paleontological ☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 25 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Timing Responsible
Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit Met?
resources are encountered, adequate funding shall be provided to collect, curate and report on these resources to ensure the values inherent in the resources are adequately characterized and preserved. Collected specimens will be sent to the appropriate authorities for collection.

Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
Planning
43) BIO-2: To avoid impacts to special-status bat species and identify roosting habitat, a preconstruction bat survey shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist prior to initiation of project activities. The survey shall be conducted within a 100-foot buffer of areas containing suitable habitat (i.e., adjacent willow trees) during appropriate weather conditions per the bat biologist’s recommendations. If bats are identified, the qualified bat biologist shall identify the bats to the species level and evaluate the colony to determine its size and significance, and presence of a maternal colony. If any evidence of bat occupation is identified during the survey, the qualified bat biologist shall then provide additional measures to avoid impacts to roosting bats, and if the observed species has special status, as recommended by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Measures provided shall be specific to the individual roost species present, and proposed construction activities, and shall include: a) postponement of project activities within a no-work buffer specified by the bat biologist to outside of the bat maternity season (typically, maternity season is April 1 through August 31) if a maternity colony is identified to be present and b) monitoring of project activities by a qualified bat biologist.

Project activities that do not produce noise or vibrations substantially higher than ambient conditions may be conducted if a nonmaternal roosting colony is present at the qualified bat biologist’s discretion. If the qualified bat biologist determines that nonmaternal colony roosting bats are disturbed by construction activities, construction activities shall cease immediately and additional avoidance measures (e.g., installation of a noise shroud or sound curtain) shall ☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 26 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Timing Responsible
Department Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit Met?
be required before activities resume. If a maternity colony is present, tree removal and/or modification shall occur outside the bat maternity season (typically April 1 through August 31) in the fall (after flightless young have become volant as determined by the qualified bat biologist) and under the supervision of a qualified bat biologist.

Prior to Issuance
of Grading
Permit
County Fire
44)Secondary Fire Access- In the interest of Public Safety, the project shall provide an Alternate or Secondary Access(s). Said Alternate or Secondary Access(s) shall have concurrence and approval of both the Transportation Department and the Riverside County Fire Department. (Riverside County Ordinance 460 and California Fire Code) The primary fire apparatus access is De Anza Drive at Lyon Avenue, and the secondary fire apparatus access is De Anza Drive at Ranch View Lane.
☐
Timing Responsible
Department Prior to Issuance of Building Permit Met?
Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
Planning 45) A copy of all pages of these Conditions shall be included in the construction drawing packages for building plans, and landscape and irrigation plan. ☐ Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
Planning
46) All plans submitted to the City shall reflect the plans in this approval. This condition applies to site plans, grading plans, landscape plans, building plans, elevations, and all other illustrations, text, or plans submitted to the City in connection with the project.
☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 27 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
Planning
47) The subdivider shall pay a fee in lieu thereof for neighborhood and community park and recreation purposes according to the standards and formula contained in Title 16 – Subdivision Code. A total of 7.844 acres of parkland is required to be dedicated in accordance with the formula for dedication of land. This condition is met with the dedication of 7.844 acres of parkland. ☐
Prior to
Issuance of
Building
Permits
Planning
48) The developer shall pay all required Development Impact Fees (DIF) for parkland acquisition, parkland development, and park facilities in effect at the time of permit issuance for each home. Upon the City’s acceptance of the completed parks, the developer will receive a refund of the applicable fees pursuant to Title 16 of the Municipal Code. The amount of the refund shall not exceed the actual cost of the parkland acquisition, parkland development, and park facilities, nor shall it exceed the amount of the fees initially paid. No crosscategory credit or refund shall be provided. The developer must provide documentation to the City demonstrating that the refunds do not exceed the actual costs incurred.
☐
Prior to
Issuance of
Building
Permits
Planning
49) Submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan for review and approval. The landscape plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect in conformance with Chapter 17.325 – Water Efficient Landscape and Irrigation and Section 17.325.060 — Landscape and Irrigation Submittal Package Requirements of the Development Code and the City Landscape Design Guidelines for review and approval by the City Landscape Architect. Plans should be submitted at least 30 days prior to the expected date of permit issuance. The Landscape and Irrigation Submittal Package shall include:
 A completed application packet provided by the city.
 The Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet, including the MAWA and ETWU; Note the ETo rate for San Jacinto is 56.8 per State guidelines.  The soils management report.
 The landscape design plan.
 The irrigation design plan.
 The grading plan
☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 28 of 39 ends

The design review shall be consistent with the Residential Development Design Regulations (Development Code Section 17.425.020) and consist of:
a. A precise grading plan with the plotting of homes, setbacks from property lines, paved areas, slopes, etc.
b. Floor plans.
c. Architectural elevations (in color) of all sides.
d. Typical front yard landscaping.
e. Entry monumentation, and parkway landscape treatments. f. Wall and Fence Plan that includes a decorative block wall around the perimeter of the project and interior fencing; and
g. Common mailbox architectural treatment.
h. Elevations of houses facing Lyon Avenue shall be enhanced ☐
Prior to
Issuance of
Building
Permits
Planning 51) Grading and public improvements shall be installed in accordance with city standards and specifications.
☐
Prior to
Issuance of
Building
Permits
Planning
52)Submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan for review and approval. The landscape plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect in conformance with Chapter 17.325 – Water Efficient Landscape and Irrigation and Section 17.325.060 — Landscape and Irrigation Submittal Package Requirements of the Development Code and the City Landscape Design Guidelines for review and approval by the City Landscape Architect. Plans should be submitted at least 30 days prior to the expected date of permit issuance.
☐
Prior to
Issuance of
Building
Permits
Planning
53) The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD rules, Rule 201 – Permit to Construct, Rule 203 – Permit to Operate, and Rule 461 – Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing by obtaining the proper permits from SCAQMD ☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 29 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Prior to
Issuance of
Building
Permits
Planning
54) The developer/applicant or successor in interest shall record a “Water Quality Management Plan and Urban Runoff BMP Transfer Access and Maintenance Agreement,” to provide public notice of the requirement to implement the approved Final project-specific WQMP and the maintenance requirements associated with the WQMP.

The developer/applicant or successor in interest shall ensure the following, pursuant to Section XII. I. of the 2010 NPDES Permit:

Field verification that structural Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control BMPs are designed, constructed and functional in accordance with the approved Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). City WQMP Inspector will be notified for required inspections during construction ☐
Prior to
Issuance of
Building
Permits
Special
Districts
55)Annexation into the required Community Facilities Districts, Assessment Districts, and Landscape/Lighting/Park Maintenance District shall be completed and verified by the City Special Districts administrator. ☐
Prior to
Issuance of
Building
Permits
Building &
Safety
56) Methane testing shall be conducted by a licensed engineer, geologist or registered environmental assessor and if necessary, shall include measures to reduce concentrations of methane to an acceptable level. ☐
Prior to
Issuance of
Building
Permits
Building &
Safety
57) 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. ☐
Prior to
Issuance of
Building
Permits
Building &
Safety
58)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 ☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 30 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
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 (not including guest spaces) 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.

Prior to
Issuance of
Building
Permits
Planning
59) The City of San Jacinto has adopted the area-wide Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). This Project is subject to the payment of fees prior to the issuance of building permits unless exempted by the ordinance establishing the MSHCP program. The fees shall be subject to the provisions of the enabling ordinance and based upon the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
☐
Prior to
Issuance of
Building
Permits
Building &
Safety
60)All required Fire Department vehicle access roads shall be maintained in a passable condition at all times for emergency Fire Department use. Gates or other obstructions shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to construction
☐
Prior to
Issuance of
Building
Permits
Building &
Safety
61) The contract with demolition and construction contractors shall include the requirement that all materials that can be recycled shall be salvaged and recycled. This includes, but is not limited to, wood, metals, concrete, road base, and asphalt. The developer shall submit a recycling plan to the City for review and approval prior to the start of demolition/construction activities to accomplish this objective.
☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 31 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Prior to
Issuance of
Building
Permits
Building &
Safety
62) 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. ☐
Prior to
Issuance of
Building
Permits
Building &
Safety
63) The City has adopted Traffic Signal Mitigation fees and the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program; this Project shall be subject to the payment of these fees prior to the issuance of building permits unless exempted by the ordinance establishing the TUMF program. The fees shall be subject to the provisions of the enabling ordinance and based upon the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
☐
Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
Building &
Safety
64) Fire hydrants shall be tested, accepted, and placed in service prior to any combustible material placed on the site. Hydrants shall be placed on all streets in and around all Projects
☐
Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
Building &
Safety
65)All lumber scraps, combustible materials, and other debris shall be picked up daily, or more often as required by the Building and Safety Division ☐ Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
Building &
Safety
66)If water supply for fire hydrants is lost or if pressure is dramatically reduced, contact the City of San Jacinto, Building and Safety Division & Public Utilities Department.
☐
Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
Riverside
County Fire
67) Fire Apparatus Access - Prior to issuance of Building Permits, an approved site plan for fire apparatus access roads, markings and signage shall be submitted and approved by the Office of the Fire Marshal (CFC 501). The Fire Apparatus Access Road shall be (all weather surface) capable of sustaining an imposed load of 75,000 lbs. GVW. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty–four (24) feet as approved by the Office of the Fire Marshal and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less the thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches (CFC 503.2.3 and RCO 787). The fire apparatus access plan shall show where parking is prohibited and where signage indicating prohibited parking will be installed. If construction is phased, ☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 32 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
each phase shall provide approved emergency vehicular access for fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 503). Prior to building construction, fire apparatus access roads extending beyond 150 feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 503.2.5)
Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
Riverside
County Fire
68) FIRE - Fire Water Supply System - Minimum fire flow for the construction of all residential buildings is required per the California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B and Table B105.1(1). Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant/developer shall provide documentation to show there exists a water system capable of delivering the fire flow based on the information given. Per this submittal (A total fire flow area of less than 3,600 square feet including the floor area, structure overhangs such as porches, patios, eaves and attached garages) the minimum fire flow will be 500 gallons per minute at 20 psi for 1/2 hour. Subsequent design changes may increase or decrease the required fire flow. ☐
Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
Riverside
County Fire
69) FIRE - Fire Flow - Minimum fire flow for the construction of all residential buildings is required per the California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B and Table B105.1(1). Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant/developer shall provide documentation to show there exists a water system capable of delivering the fire flow based on the information given. Per this submittal (A total fire flow area of less than 3,600 square feet including the floor area, structure overhangs such as porches, patios, eaves and attached garages) the minimum fire flow will be 500 gallons per minute at 20 psi for 1/2 hour. Subsequent design changes may increase or decrease the required fire flow ☐
Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
Riverside
County Fire
70) FIRE - Fire Hydrants - Single Family Dwellings. Schedule "A" approved standard fire hydrants (6” x 4” x 2 ½”) shall be spaced no more than 500 feet apart in any direction so that no point on the street is more than 250 feet from a hydrant. (CFC 507.5, Appendix C). The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed, made serviceable, and be accepted by the Office of the Fire Marshal prior to beginning any combustible materials to the construction site. Fire hydrants shall be always maintained visible and accessible.
☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 33 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
Riverside
County Fire
71) FIRE - Street Identification Signs Prior to issuance of Building Permits, approved street signs for fire apparatus access roads shall be installed. ☐ Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
Engineering 72) Tract Map 38203 shall be filed for review and approval and shall be recorded. ☐ Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
Engineering
73) This project is located within the limits of San Jacinto Valley Area Drainage Plan (ADP) for which drainage fees have been adopted by the city. The ADP fee shall be paid as set forth under the provisions of the “Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area Drainage Plan.”
☐
Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
Engineering 74)Water and Sewer Improvement Plans, per Fire Department and Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) standards, shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval ☐
Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
Engineering 75) Fire Department and EMWD approvals of the Water Improvement Plan are required prior to City Engineer’s approval. ☐
Prior to Issuance
of Building
Permits
Engineering 76)All weather access per Fire Department standards shall be provided to the proposed buildings per the Precise Grading Plan. ☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 34 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Timing
Responsible
Department Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permit Met?
Prior to
Occupancy
Engineering
77) Lyon Avenue (Major Highway 112′/76′) along the property frontage (Remainder Parcel) within the dedicated right-of-way shall be improved to provide for a 56- foot wide asphalt paving (using a TI of 9.0 and PG 70-10), Class I multi use path (per City of San Jacinto Trails Master Plan), curb, gutter, and sidewalk, and streetlights subject to the photometric analysis, per City of San Jacinto, County of Riverside and Caltrans standards.

If the existing pavement is in good condition the developer/property owner may use grind and overlay technique as determined by the City Engineer. ☐
Prior to
Occupancy
Engineering
78) De Anza Drive (Collector 78’/40’) from Lyon Avenue to the extension of Ranch View Lane within the dedicated right-of-way shall be improved to provide for a 40-foot-wide asphalt paving (using a TI of 8.0 and PG 64-10), curb and gutter, and streetlights subject to photometric analysis, per City of San Jacinto, County of Riverside and Caltrans standards. The parkway on the north side of De Anza shall be 21-foot wide and improved with an 8-foot-wide PCC sidewalk, 4-footwide decomposed granite path with mow curb on its outside edge, and 9-footwide landscape strip. The parkway on the south side of De Anza shall be 17- feet-wide and improved with an 8-foot-wide PCC sidewalk, 4-foot-wide decomposed granite path with mow curb on its outside edge, and 5-foot-wide landscape strip.

De Anza Drive between the extension of Ranch View Lane and the west tract boundary shall transition to match secondary highway section (100’/64’) following Caltrans criteria for pavement transition lengths. ☐
Prior to
Occupancy
Engineering
79) The existing intersection of Lyon Avenue and De Anza Drive shall be improved to its ultimate configuration. The west leg of the intersection shall be constructed with a roadway configuration of one (1) exclusive left-turn lane and one (1) shared through/right-turn lane. The east leg along De Anza Drive shall ☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 35 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
convert the exclusive westbound right-turn lane into a shared through/right-turn lane. Appropriate striping and signage shall be installed.

Restripe and/or widen the northbound and southbound approaches of Lyon Avenue to provide a second approach lane in each direction. This would require restriping the northbound and southbound departures along Lyon Avenue to provide a second departure lane in each direction.

The traffic signal shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the 200th occupancy permit.

Prior to
Occupancy
Engineering
80) Construct the following intersection improvements, or alternatively pay the associated fair share contribution or TUMF fees whichever applies upon submittal, as proposed by applicant in McLeish Ranch Residential Project (TTM 38203) Traffic Impact Study, dated June 1, 2022:
a) Warren Road at Ramona Expressway - Restripe and/or widen the southbound approach of Warren Road to provide an exclusive southbound left-turn lane. Modify the traffic signal to provide protected left-turn phasing for all legs (i.e. 8-phase signal). (4.4% fair share contribution.) b) Sanderson Avenue (SR-79) at Ramona Expressway - Restripe and/or widen all approaches along Sanderson Avenue and Ramona
Expressway to provide a third through lane in each direction. This would require restriping and/or widening all departures to provide an additional lane in each direction. (3.7% fair share contribution.) c) Lyon Avenue at Ramona Boulevard - Restripe and/or widen the northbound and southbound approaches of Lyon Avenue to provide a second approach lane in each direction. This would require restriping the northbound and southbound departures along Lyon Avenue to provide a second departure lane in each direction. (12.6% fair share contribution.) ☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 36 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
d) Lyon Avenue at Cottonwood Avenue - Install a traffic signal with permissive phasing for all left-turn movements (i.e. 2-phase signal). (19.1% fair share contribution.)
Prior to
Occupancy Engineering
81) Construct interior streets (Local 60/40) using TI of 5.5 and PG 64-10, streetlights, sidewalk, curb, and gutter at 20 feet on both sides of centerline, per City of San Jacinto, County of Riverside and Caltrans Standards.

The interior street connection to Ranch View Lane will require the existing offset cul-de-sac to be removed and replaced with the ultimate full width Local Street section standard. Coordination with the developer of adjacent tentative Tract 30066 will be required to modify the existing right of way limits to match the Local Street section, and to transition to the existing pavement. ☐
Prior to
Occupancy Engineering 82) The residential driveways shall be constructed per County of Riverside Standard No. 207. ☐ Prior to
Occupancy Planning
83) The developer/applicant or successor in interest shall submit the following items for the landscape and irrigation development and maintenance a. The signed Landscape Certificate of Completion pursuant to Section

17.325.070– Certificate of Completion of the Development Code. b. The irrigation scheduling pursuant to Section 17.325.080 Irrigation Scheduling of the Development Code.
c. The Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance Schedule pursuant to Section

17.325.090 – Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance Schedule of the Development Code; and
d. The Irrigation Audit, Irrigation Survey, and Irrigation Water Use Analysis pursuant to Section 17.325.100 — Irrigation Audit, Irrigation Survey, and Irrigation Water Use Analysis of the Development Code.

Pursuant to Section 17.325.150 – Maintenance of the Development Code, all installed landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continually maintained.

Maintenance shall consist of regular watering, mowing, pruning, fertilizing, clearing of debris and weeds, monitoring for pests and disease, the removal

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 37 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
and timely replacement of dead plants, and the repair and timely replacement of irrigation systems, and integrated architectural features.

Prior to
Occupancy Engineering
84) The applicant is willing to construct the traffic signal at Lyon Avenue and De Anza Avenue. Ordinance 05-18 authorizes the City Manager on behalf of the City to execute a credit agreement with the developer to offset the Traffic Signal Developer Impact Fee obligation in exchange for the construction of the traffic signal. The developer shall enter into the credit agreement prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit for Tract 38203.
☐
Prior to
Occupancy
Riverside
County Fire
85) FIRE - Building Address Numbers - Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or Building Final, all residential dwellings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the residence in such a position that the numbers are easily visible to approaching emergency vehicles.

The numbers shall be located consistently on each dwelling throughout the development. The numerals shall be no less than four (4) inches in height. (CFC 505.1)
☐
Prior to
Occupancy
Riverside
County Fire
86) FIRE - Fire Hydrant Markers - Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or Building Final, “Blue Reflective Markers” shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations in accordance with Riverside County Fire Department Technical Policy #06-011. (CFC 507.5.8).
☐
Prior to
Occupancy Special Districts
87) Development must comply with Storm Water Basin & Pump Specifications and Standards. Privately maintained storm water and water quality systems will be required to submit an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication, or similar dedication language upon map recordation, for each basin lot.
☐
Prior to
Occupancy Special Districts 88) Development must comply with Landscape and Irrigation Design Guidelines. ☐ Prior to
Occupancy Special Districts
89) Landscape improvements shall include irrigation meters and backflow devices with tampering preventive cage, exclusive for right-of-way landscaping. Rightof-way landscaping must be divided from private property by form or mow-curb or other approved materials.
☐
Prior to
Occupancy Special Districts
90) Landscape areas in the right-of-way shall include an independent irrigation control system, with separate electric meter, exclusive for right-of-way landscaping.
☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 38 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
o Cal-Sense version approved by the Public Utilities Superintendent is required for City maintained irrigation areas. (Must be operational and certified by Cal-Sense)
Timing Responsible
Department Prior to Acceptance of Public Improvement Met? Prior to
Acceptance of
Public
Improvement
Special Districts
91) The developer will ensure that funds are available for maintenance, in the event that improvements are completed, and ready for City takeover, PRIOR to levy collection.
i. The first installment of collected assessments is paid to the City in January of each year. In the event that takeover is requested before the first installment is paid to the city, the Developer will either:
i. Pay an advancement of funds for the months included from takeover to collection (amount to be set by cost estimate at annexation) OR ii. ii. Continue to maintain improvements until City has acquired enough funds to sustain maintenance or until first assessment installment is received, whichever is first
☐
Prior to
Acceptance of
Public
Improvement
Special Districts
92) Upon acceptance and City takeover, developer will ensure that a minimum of one-year warranty is in place for landscape, irrigation, and basin integrity, inclusive pumps and mechanical equipment used for the maintenance of the improvements taken over
☐
Prior to
Acceptance of
Public
Improvement
Special Districts
93) Parks and associated facilities shall be inspected by a Certified Access Specialist through the Division of the State Architect ensuring compliance with applicable state and federal construction-related accessibility standards. A copy of the disability access inspection certificate and the CASp inspection report shall be provided to the City. Any accessibility barriers documented will need to be remedied prior to acceptance of the park by the city. ☐
Prior to
Acceptance of
Public
Special Districts 94) Development must comply with Landscape and Irrigation Design Guidelines ☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Conditions of Approval

Page 39 of 39 ends

General Notes, Requirements, and Conditions of
Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map No. 38203 P22-022 (ARC23- 0008) McLeish Ranch
Improvement
Prior to
Acceptance of
Public
Improvement
Special Districts
95) Landscape improvements shall include irrigation meters and backflow devices with tampering preventive cage, exclusive for right-of-way landscaping. Rightof-way landscaping must be divided from private property by form or mowcurb or other approved materials. ☐
Prior to
Acceptance of
Public
Improvement
Special Districts
96) Landscape areas in the right-of-way shall include an independent irrigation control system, with separate electric meter, exclusive for right-of-way landscaping.
a. Cal-Sense version approved by the Public Utilities Superintendent is required for City maintained irrigation areas.
☐

4.1.e
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Conditions of Approval (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & 436-080-001
436-080-002
436-080-006

BORDEAUX
L
N

RECORD RD

REEDS WAY

RAMONA BLVD

LAURELHURST HEIGHTS

AMARILLO WAY

AIRLIFT ST

SUNSWEPT DR

DE ANZA DR

CONSTANT TRAILS

CHARDONNAY PL

SAVORY LN

SKY VIEW LN

LYON AVE

SAVI ST

CANVAS WAY

BLAZE LN

GLOW POINTE

DIAMOND CT

PEARL CT

SAPPHIRE CT

ROJO LN

IMAGE MEADOWS

CARAWAY CT

STREAM POINTE

GRAVO PL

FLOURISH HILL

VIBRANT GLEN

BABBLING BROOK PL

HAYLOFT PL

MISTY MEADOW LN

AMOR DR

GLISTEN TRAILS

BEAM HOLLOW

BRIDGE RD
E
D
E
N
VA
L
L
EYWAY

SANDERSON AVE

DE ANZA DR

DECHADO LN

RUSTIC GLEN WAY

WHEATFIELD WAY

PRAIRIE GLEN PL

WHEELBARROWWAY

CHASE ST

POTTER RD

RANCH VIEW LN

SCOTT ST

GEORGETOWNST

ECHO RD

WINDRIDER ST
B
RI
L
L
I

ANCE LN

AVENA WAY

LECHUGA WAY

POTTER RD

RAMONA EXPY

STATUE ROW
¯
ARC23-0008
Location Map

4.1.f
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Location Map (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) 436-080-001
436-080-002
436-080-006

BORDEAUX
L
N
S
U
N
N
Y
SID
E
BLV
D

RECORD RD

REEDS WAY

RAMONA BLVD AMARILLO WAY

AIRLIFT ST

SUNSWEPT DR

DE ANZA DR

CHARDONNAY PL

SAVORY LN

SKY VIEW LN

LYON AVE

SAVI ST

CANVAS WAY

BLAZE LN

ROJO LN

STREAM POINTE

FLOURISH HILL

VIBRANT GLEN

BABBLING BROOK PL

MISTY MEADOW LN

AMOR DR

GLISTEN TRAILS

BEAM HOLLOW

SANDERSON AVE

DE ANZA DR

WHEATFIELD WAY

PRAIRIE GLEN PL

WHEELBARROW WAY

POTTER RD

RANCH VIEW LN

SCOTT ST

ECHO RD

WINDRIDER ST
B
RI
L
L

IANCE LN

AVENA WAY

LECHUGA WAY

POTTER RD

RAMONA EXPY

STATUE ROW
¯
ARC23-0008
General Plan Land Use Map
Land Use Designation
VLDR: Very Low Density Residential
LDR: Low Density Residential
MDR: Medium Density Residential
HDR: High Density Residential
MU: Mixed Use
C: Commercial
BP: Business Park
PI: Public/Institutional
P: Park
SPA: Specific Plan Area
W: Water

4.1.g
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: General Plan Land Use Map (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) 436-080-001
436-080-002
436-080-006

BORDEAUX
L
N
S
U
N
N
Y
SID
E
BLV
D

RECORD RD

REEDS WAY

RAMONA BLVD AMARILLO WAY

AIRLIFT ST

SUNSWEPT DR

DE ANZA DR

CHARDONNAY PL

SAVORY LN

SKY VIEW LN

LYON AVE

SAVI ST

CANVAS WAY

BLAZE LN

ROJO LN

STREAM POINTE

FLOURISH HILL

VIBRANT GLEN

BABBLING BROOK PL

MISTY MEADOW LN

AMOR DR

GLISTEN TRAILS

BEAM HOLLOW

SANDERSON AVE

DE ANZA DR

WHEATFIELD WAY

PRAIRIE GLEN PL

WHEELBARROW WAY

POTTER RD

RANCH VIEW LN

SCOTT ST

ECHO RD

WINDRIDER ST
B
RI
L
L

IANCE LN

AVENA WAY

LECHUGA WAY

POTTER RD

RAMONA EXPY

STATUE ROW
¯
ARC23-0008
Zoning Map
Residential Zones
RR - Rural Residential
RL - Residential, Low Density
RM - Residential, Medium Density
RH - Residential, High Density
Commercial and Industrial Zones
CG - Commercial General
CR - Commercial Regional
BP - Business Park
OP - Office Park
Mixed Use Zones
MU - Mixed Use
Special Purpose Zones
OSR - Open Space Recreation
PI - Public Institutional
SP - Specific Plan
W - Water Source

4.1.h
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Zoning Map (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MODIFIED INITIAL STUDY / CEQA 15183 CHECKLIST
McLeish Ranch Planned Development
& Tentative Tract Map 38203
LEAD AGENCY:

City of San Jacinto
Planning Division
595 South San Jacinto Avenue
San Jacinto, California 92583
Contact: Steven Valdez, Principal Planner
951.487.7330
PREPARED BY:

VCS Environmental
30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
Contact: Julie Beeman
949.489.2700
November 2024

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) This document has been set up for double-sided printing in order to conserve natural resources.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 i Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Environmental Checklist ......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Overview of 15183 Checklist...................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 San Jacinto 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report ...................... 1-2

1.4 Summary of Findings.................................................................................................. 1-3

2.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements...................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Incorporation by Reference........................................................................................ 2-1

3.0 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Location...................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Physical Setting........................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Land Use Setting......................................................................................................... 3-5

3.4 Project Characteristics................................................................................................ 3-6

3.5 Project Phasing and Construction ............................................................................ 3-23

3.6 Required Project Permits and Approvals.................................................................. 3-24

4.0 Environmental Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics................................................................................................................4.1-1

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .......................................................................4.2-1

4.3 Air Quality ...............................................................................................................4.3-1

4.4 Biological Resources ...............................................................................................4.4-1

4.5 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................4.5-1

4.6 Energy .....................................................................................................................4.6-1

4.7 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................4.7-1

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .....................................................................................4.8-1

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..........................................................................4.9-1

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...............................................................................4.10-1

4.11 Land Use and Planning .........................................................................................4.11-1

4.12 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................4.12-1

4.13 Noise .....................................................................................................................4.13-1

4.14 Population and Housing .......................................................................................4.14-1

4.15 Public Services.......................................................................................................4.15-1

4.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................4.16-1

4.17 Transportation ......................................................................................................4.17-1

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ......................................................................................4.18-1

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................4.19-1

4.20 Wildfire .................................................................................................................4.20-1

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................4.21-1

4.22 References.............................................................................................................4.22-1

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 ii Table of Contents

5.0 Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards Inventory.......................................... 5-1

6.0 Report Preparation Personnel ................................................................................................ 6-1 APPENDICES [Please note that the Appendices are under separate cover] Appendix A Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis Appendix B Biological Technical Report and MSHCP Consistency Analysis Appendix C Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix D Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation
Appendix E Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix F1 Preliminary Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan Appendix F2 Preliminary Hydrology Study
Appendix G Noise Impact Analysis
Appendix H Public Services/Utilities Correspondence
Appendix I Traffic Impact Study

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 iii Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Regional Location ....................................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2 Local Vicinity............................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-3 USGS Topographic Map.............................................................................................. 3-4 Figure 3-4 Existing Surrounding Land Uses.................................................................................. 3-7 Figure 3-5a Existing Site Photographs .......................................................................................... 3-8 Figure 3-5b Existing Site Photographs .......................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-5c Existing Site Photographs......................................................................................... 3-10 Figure 3-6 Tentative Tract Map ................................................................................................. 3-11 Figure 3-7 Community Amenities.............................................................................................. 3-13 Figure 3-8a McLeish Park Enlargement....................................................................................... 3-14 Figure 3-8b Linear Park Enlargement .......................................................................................... 3-15 Figure 3-9a Conceptual Landscape Plan...................................................................................... 3-16 Figure 3-9b Plant Palette ............................................................................................................. 3-17 Figure 3-9c Plant Palette ............................................................................................................. 3-18 Figure 3-10 Wall and Fence Plans................................................................................................ 3-19 Figure 3-11 Water Quality Drainage Map.................................................................................... 3-21 Figure 4.4-1 Vegetation/Land Cover............................................................................................4.4-5 Figure 4.4-2a California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Occurrences – Plant......................4.4-9 Figure 4.4-2b California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Occurrences – Wildlife................4.4-10 Figure 4.10-1 National Flood Hazard Map.................................................................................4.10-10 Figure 4.13-1 Field Noise Monitoring Locations........................................................................4.13-12 Figure 4.17-1 Existing Lane Geometry.........................................................................................4.17-4 Figure 4.17-2 Existing Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................4.17-5 Figure 4.17-3 Project Only Traffic Volumes.................................................................................4.17-6 Figure 4.17-4 2027 With Project Condition Traffic Volumes.....................................................4.17-11 Figure 4.17-5 Project Trip Distribution ......................................................................................4.17-13 Figure 4.20-1 Fire Hazard Severity Zones....................................................................................4.20-2 Figure 4.21-1 Cumulative Projects Location Map........................................................................4.21-5

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 iv Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 Land Uses Surrounding the Property ......................................................................... 3-5 Table 3-2 Relevant Planning Programs/Plans............................................................................. 3-6 Table 3-3 Land Use Statistical Summary .................................................................................... 3-6 Table 3-4 Utility Providers........................................................................................................ 3-22 Table 3-5 Project Area Fire Stations......................................................................................... 3-22 Table 3-6 SJUSD School Generation Factors for Single-Family Detached Units ....................... 3-23 Table 4.3-1 State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards.......................................................4.3-5 Table 4.3-2 California Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment Status – South Coast Air Basin ..............................................................................................4.3-7 Table 4.3-3 SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance............4.3-11 Table 4.3-4 SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance...........................................4.3-12 Table 4.3-5 General Plan Maximum Regional Construction Emissions....................................4.3-14 Table 4.3-6 General Plan Maximum Regional Operational Emissions (pounds/day) ...............4.3-14 Table 4.3-7 Construction-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions................................. 4.3-16 Table 4.3-8 Construction-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions.......................................4.3-17 Table 4.3-9 Operational Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions................................................4.3-18 Table 4.3-10 Operations‐Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions .........................................4.3-21 Table 4.4-1 Vegetation Communities.........................................................................................4.4-4 Table 4.4-2 Special Status Species..............................................................................................4.4-6 Table 4.4-3 Survey Data for BUOW Focused Surveys...............................................................4.4-14 Table 4.6-1 Proposed Project Compliance with Applicable General Plan Energy Policies..........4.6-6 Table 4.8-1 Global Warming Potentials, Atmospheric Lifetimes and Abundances of GHGs......4.8-4 Table 4.8-2 Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions................................................4.8-7 Table 4.10-1 Beneficial Use Descriptions...................................................................................4.10-4 Table 4.10-2 Study Area Water Body Beneficial Uses................................................................4.10-5 Table 4.10-3 303(d) Listed Impaired Water Bodies....................................................................4.10-6 Table 4.11-1 General Plan Land Use Consistency.......................................................................4.11-2 Table 4.13-1 Federal Transit Administration Construction Noise Criteria..................................4.13-4

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 v Table of Contents
Table 4.13-2 Federal Transit Administration Project Effects on Cumulative Noise Exposure ....4.13-4 Table 4.13-3 City of San Jacinto Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure from Mobile Noise Sources...................................................................................4.13-5 Table 4.13-4 City of San Jacinto Allowable Exterior Noise Level Due to Stationary Noise Sources...........................................................................4.13-7 Table 4.13-5 City of San Jacinto Allowable Interior Noise Level Due to Stationary Noise Sources...........................................................................4.13-8 Table 4.13-6 Existing (Ambient) Noise Measurement Results .................................................4.13-11 Table 4.13-7 Construction Equipment Noise Emissions and Usage Factors.............................4.13-14 Table 4.13-8 Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Sensitive Receptors...........................4.13-15 Table 4.13-9 Existing Project Traffic Noise Contributions........................................................4.13-17 Table 4.13-10 Opening Year 2027 Project Traffic Noise Contributions......................................4.13-17 Table 4.13-11 Proposed Homes Exterior and Interior Noise Levels from Lyon Avenue.............4.13-18 Table 4.13-12 FTA Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment...................................4.13-20 Table 4.14-1 Jurisdictional Population Forecasts 2040 ..............................................................4.14-2 Table 4.12-2 Jurisdictional Household Forecasts 2040 ..............................................................4.14-2 Table 4.14-3 Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2021-2029....................................................4.14-3 Table 4.15-1 SJUSD School Generation Factors for Single-Family Detached Units ....................4.15-5 Table 4.17-1 Traffic Study Area ..................................................................................................4.17-3 Table 4.17-2 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections.............................................4.17-7 Table 4.17-3 Project Trip Generation Forecasts .......................................................................4.17-12 Table 4.17-4 Intersection Capacity Analysis.............................................................................4.17-14 Table 4.17-5 Project Fair-Share Contribution with Project Conditions ....................................4.17-15 Table 4.17-6 VMT Screening Analysis.......................................................................................4.17-19 Table 4.19-1 Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison for Retail and Wholesale .............4.19-4 Table 4.19-2 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison for Retail and Wholesale .........4.19-5 Table 4.19-3 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison for Retail ............................4.19-5 Table 4.19-4 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison for Wholesale.....................4.19-6 Table 4.21-1 Related Cumulative Projects .................................................................................4.21-3

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 vi Table of Contents
This page was intentionally left blank.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 1-1 Environmental Checklist

1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

1.1 Background

1. Project Title:

McLeish Ranch Planned Development & Tentative Tract Map 38203

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of San Jacinto
Planning Department
595 South San Jacinto Avenue
San Jacinto, California 92583

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Steven Valdez, Principal Planner
Telephone: (951) 487-7330

4. Project Location:

The project site is situated west of Lyon Avenue, southwest of Ramona Boulevard, east of Sanderson Avenue, and north of the San Jacinto Reservoir, in the City of San Jacinto, County of Riverside, California.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Derek Barbour
Vice President – Land
Richland Real Estate Fund, LLC
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 425
Irvine, California 92615

6. General Plan Designation:

The City of San Jacinto General Plan (GP) designates the project site as Low Density Residential (LDR).

7. Zoning:

The project site is zoned Residential, Low Density (RL) .

8. Description of Project:

The McLeish Ranch Planned Development and Tentative Tract Map 38203 (proposed project) requests approval of a Planned Development, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) and Site Plan & Design Review approval to allow for the development of up to 424 single-family homes and open space on an approximately 96-acre project site. The project site consists of approximately

87.09 acres of residential development area and approximately 8.91 acres of park, open space and landscape areas. Refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, for a comprehensive description of the proposed project.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 1-2 Environmental Checklist

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site is currently agricultural/vacant and is surrounded by a residential subdivision and agricultural/vacant lands to the north, agricultural/vacant land to the east, the San Jacinto Reservoir to the south, and agricultural/vacant land to the west.

1.2 Overview of 15183 Checklist
California Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183 provide an exemption from additional environmental review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. Section 15183 specifies that examination of environmental effects shall be limited to those effects that: (1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, and 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, (2) Are potentially significant offsite impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or (3) 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. Section 15183(c) further specifies that if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the proposed 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, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for that project solely on the basis of that impact.

1.3 San Jacinto 2040 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report The City of San Jacinto’s Envision San Jacinto – 2040 General Plan or General Plan Update (Adopted November 15, 2022) is the long-range guide for growth and development within the City of San Jacinto.

The current General Plan (“GP” or “General Plan Update (GPU)”) also provides guidance to preserve the qualities that define the natural and built environment. The GP also contains a land use diagram, which serves as a general guide to the distribution of land uses throughout the City. The GP is divided into seven (7) chapters that contain goals, policies, and actionsthat are intended to guide land use and development decisions and procedures. The GP includes discussions related to: Land Use, Economic Development, Mobility, Public Safety, Resource Management, Environmental Justice and Housing. The San Jacinto City Council readopted the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element on November 15, 2022 as part of the City’s comprehensive General Plan Update (the 2021-2029 Housing Element was first adopted in February 2022). The City has made minor revisions to the adopted Housing Element in response to comments from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

The General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GPEIR) was certified in conjunction with the adoption of the City’s General Plan on November 15, 2022. The GPEIR comprehensively evaluated environmental impacts that would result from the GP implementation, including information related to existing site conditions, analyses of the types and magnitude of direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts, and feasible policies and actions that could reduce or avoid environmental impacts. Such policies and actions, as well as the San Jacinto Development Code (Development Code) and the San Jacinto Municipal Code (Municipal Code), are considered the applicable “uniformly applied

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 1-3 Environmental Checklist
development policies or standards” relevant to the proposed project reviewed in this document. The GPEIR made the following statements:
 “The purpose of this Program EIR [GPEIR] is to review the existing conditions, analyze potential environmental impacts, identify General Plan Update policies and programs that serve as mitigation, and identify additional mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant effects of the proposed City of San Jacinto General Plan Update (General Plan Update).”  “This EIR [GPEIR] was prepared concurrently with the General Plan policy document in order to facilitate the development of a General Plan that is largely self-mitigating. In other words, as environmental impacts associated with the new General Plan Update, including the Land Use Map, were identified; policies and actions were incorporated into the General Plan Update policy document in order to reduce or avoid potential environmental impacts.”

1.4 Summary of Findings
A comprehensive environmental evaluation has been completed for the proposed project as documented in this Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist. This evaluation concludes that the project qualifies for a CEQA Guideline Section 15183 environmental review because it is consistent with the development density and use characteristics established by the City of San Jacinto 2040 General Plan, as analyzed by the San Jacinto General Plan 2040 Final Program EIR (GPFEIR, SCH #20020120312), and all required 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 develop up to 424 single-family homes on an approximately 96-acre project site.

The City of San Jacinto GP Land Use Policy Map designates the property as Low Density Residential (LDR) at 2.0 to 7.0 dwelling units(du) per gross acre. The LDR designation is for single-family detached residential uses and accessory buildings. This designation allows a maximum density of up to 7.0 du per net acre. The land use density of the project is 4.42 du/acre making it consistent with the existing GP. The City of San Jacinto Zoning Map identifies the project site as Residential Low (RL). The RL zone is applied to areas appropriate for a range of detached single-family residential dwellings on standard suburban parcels, together with appropriate accessory structures and uses. This zone allows a density ranging from 2.1 to 5.0 du/acre, which is consistent with the density of the proposed project. The project would be subject to the GP policies and actions, Development Code, and Municipal Code. The proposed residential development would comply with all applicable zoning requirements, including minimum lot size and setbacks.

2. The Project site and proposed uses are substantially similar to other properties and land uses in the surrounding area. This Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist identifies uniformly applied development policies or standards to augment/clarify requirements that are consistent with the GPEIR and GP goals, policies, and actions.

The project site is substantially similar to other properties in the surrounding area. Same as the proposed project site, the surrounding area is undergoing transition from agricultural/vacant land uses to residential development with similarly sized, residential lots and associated accessory uses.

Uniformly applied development policies or standards are included to augment/clarify requirements of the GP’s Actions for Biological Resources (Action RM-1d, Action RM-1i, and Action RM-1j), Cultural

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 1-4 Environmental Checklist
Resources (Action RM-3c and Action RM-3f), Geology and Soils (Action PS-1a, Action PS-1d, Action PS1f, Action PS-1g, Action RM-2a, and Action RM-3e), and Tribal Cultural Resources (Action RM-3c, Action RM-3d, and Action RM-3g).

3. There are no potentially significant offsite and/or cumulative impacts which the GPEIR failed to evaluate.

As previously discussed, the project is consistent with the density and use characteristics of the development considered by the GPEIR and would represent a small part of the growth that was forecast for build-out of the GP. The land use density of the project is 4.42 du/acre making it consistent with the existing allowable GP land use designation density (2.0 to 7.0 du per gross acre) and zoning density (2.1 to 5.0 du/acre). The GPEIR considered the incremental impacts of the project, and as explained further in this Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist below, no potentially significant offsite or cumulative impacts have been identified that were not previously evaluated. Such previously evaluated impacts relevant to the project include agricultural resources and greenhouse gas emissions.

The applicable uniformly applied development policies or standards related to agricultural resources include Policy LU-2.4, Action LU-2e, and Action LU-2f. The applicable uniformly applied development policies or standards related to greenhouse gas emissions include Action RM-4n, Action RM-4o, Action RM-5e, and Action RM 7a.

4. There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the GPEIR.

As explained in this Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist below, no new information has been identified that would result in a determination of a more severe impact than what had been anticipated by the GPEIR.

5. The project is subject to implementing the General Plan’s applicable Goals, Policies and Actions and will undertake feasible uniformly applied development policies or standards specified in this Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist.

As previously discussed, uniformly applied development policies or standards are included to augment/clarify requirements of the GP’s Actions for Biological Resources (Action RM-1d, Action RM1i, and Action RM-1j), Cultural Resources (Action RM-3c and Action RM-3f), Geology and Soils (Action PS-1a, Action PS-1d, Action PS-1f, Action PS-1g, Action RM-2a, and Action RM-3e), and Tribal Cultural Resources (Action RM-3c, Action RM-3d, and Action RM-3g).

Signature Date
Printed Name Title

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 2-1 Introduction

2.0 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before acting on those projects. Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Jacinto is the Lead Agency and has the principal responsibility of approving the proposed project.

As the Lead Agency, the City of San Jacinto is required to ensure that the proposed project complies with CEQA and that the appropriate level of CEQA documentation is prepared. Through preparation of this Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist, the City of San Jacinto would determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND), Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or determine no further environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. Based on the conclusions of this Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist, the City of San Jacinto has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the City of San Jacinto General Plan Update (“GP” or “GPU”) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and qualifies for a streamlined review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

2.1 Statutory Authority and Requirements
This Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist, which may ultimately be adopted by the City of San Jacinto in accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to describe the potential environmental impacts of the project. However, the resulting documentation is not a policy document, and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits, and other discretionary approvals would be required.

2.2 Purpose
Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines identifies global disclosure requirements for inclusion in an Initial Study. Pursuant to those requirements, an Initial Study must include: (1) a description of the project, including the location of the project; (2) an identification of the environmental setting; (3) an identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix or other method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries; (4) a discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any; (5) an examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; and (6) the name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study.

2.3 Incorporation by Reference
The planning documents listed below were utilized during the preparation of this Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist. These documents are incorporated by reference and were utilized throughout this Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist as the fundamental planning documents that may apply to work on the project site. In accordance with CEQA, this analysis relies on the City of San Jacinto GPEIR (2022) to the extent appropriate/ warranted (Public Resources Code 21083.3; CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning and 15168.1 Program EIR).

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 2-2 Introduction
Background information and policy information, as well as specific adopted rules and regulations pertaining to the City of San Jacinto were also relied upon throughout this document. The documents are available for review at the City of San Jacinto Planning Department, 595 S. San Jacinto Avenue San Jacinto, CA 92583. These documents are also available online. The hyperlinks have been provided for reader convenience.
 City of San Jacinto 2040 General Plan (Adopted November 15, 2022). The City of San Jacinto 2040 General Plan (GP) is the long-range guide for growth and development within the City.

The General Plan also provides guidance to preserve the qualities that define the natural and built environment. The General Plan is divided into seven (7) chapters that contain goals and policies which are intended to guide land use and development decisions. The General Plan includes discussions related to: Land Use, Economic Development, Mobility, Public Safety, Resource Management, Environmental Justice, and Housing. The General Plan can be accessed at the following website:
https://sanjacinto.generalplan.org/documents-amp-maps
 City of San Jacinto 2040 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report and Final Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2020120312 (July 28, 2022 and November 15, 2022, respectively). The City of San Jacinto General Plan Draft EIR (GPEIR) was circulated for public review and comment on July 28, 2022. Responses to comments on the Draft EIR and errata were provided in the City of San Jacinto General Plan Final EIR (GPEIR), which was certified by the City in November 2022. These documents provide a comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts associated with implementing the 2040 General Plan. It also serves as a reference document for which the proposed project’s potential environmental impacts may be evaluated. The General Plan Draft EIR and Final EIR can be accessed at the following website:
https://sanjacinto.generalplan.org/documents-amp-maps
 City of San Jacinto Zoning/Development Code (Adopted December 2012 and as Amended through December 2024). The City of San Jacinto’s Zoning/Development Code (Development Code) was updated for consistency with the recently adopted General Plan. The Development Code is intended to protect and promote public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare and to provide the economic and social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land resources. The Development Code carries out the policies of the San Jacinto General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the City, consistent with the General Plan. The Development Code can be accessed at the following website:
https://sanjacintoca.hosted.civiclive.com/cms/One.aspx?portalId=10384430&pageId=129293 28 4.1.i
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 3-1 Project Description

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The McLeish Ranch Planned Development & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (proposed project) requests approval of a Planned Development Permit, Tentative Tract Map, and Site Plan & Design Review approval to allow for the development of up to 424 single-family homes and open space on an approximately 96-acre project site.

3.1 Location
The approximately 96-acre project site is located in the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California; refer to Figure 3-1, Regional Location. The site is situated west of Lyon Avenue, southwest of Ramona Boulevard, east of Sanderson Avenue, and north of the San Jacinto Reservoir. The project site can be regionally accessed by Ramona Expressway State Route 79 (SR-79) from the Lyon Avenue exit. The project site can be locally accessed from Lyon Avenue, refer to Figure 3-2, Local Vicinity.

3.2 Physical Setting
The site is currently vacant and comprised of three (3) parcels, identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 436-080-001, 436-080-002, and 436-080-006. As shown in Figure 3-3, USGS Topographic Map, the project site is located within Section 21, Township 4 South, and Range 1 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Jacinto 7.5-minute quadrangle map.

The project site is currently vacant, with a slight grade and irregularly shaped. The project site is between 1,500 feet and 1,470 feet above sea level. The project site drains west to northwest.

Regionally, the site is located within the San Jacinto valley. This area consists primarily of alluvial flood plain/stream channel deposits sourced from the nearby San Jacinto River. Onsite groundwater was encountered at approximate depths of 22 feet and 27 feet below existing grade.

The majority of the vegetation within the project site is characterized by maintained open fields comprised of disturbed annual grassland cover vegetated with a variety of non-native and early successional weedy plant species. Presently, vegetation on the site is managed (mowing and tree/ shrub removal) with the exception of the southeastern corner, which contains agricultural crop cover.

According to the California Department of Conservation (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site contains approximately 11 acres of Prime Farmland, approximately 75 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance and approximately 7 acres of Unique Farmland (CDC 2022).

Based on field survey observations and vegetation mapping conducted at the site, approximately 4.3 acres were under agricultural use for cultivating alfalfa.

The project lies within the San Jacinto watershed. The closest significant aquatic features to the site include the San Jacinto River, located approximately 1.3 miles to the north-northwest, and the San Jacinto Reservoir, located immediately south of the project site. There are no streambed or drainage features containing waters of the United States or waters of the State on the project site. Flood Rate Insurance Map Firm Map No. 06065C1490H identifies the project site is in Flood Zone X Areas of Minimal Flooding.

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the project site is not within a Very High Fire Severity Hazard Area.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Source: ESRI and USGS; May 2022.
- approximate project loca on
MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 3-1
Regional Loca on

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Property Boundary
Source: ESRI; May 2022.

MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 3-2
Local Vicinity

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 3-3
USGS Topographic Map
Source: USGS Quadrange: San Jacinto; May 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 406
Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 3-5 Project Description

3.3 Land Use Setting

HISTORICAL LAND USES
Based on review of historical records and aerial photographs of the project site, the property was likely under dry-type or low field crop agriculture prior to 1966 through the present, with no structural development known. Historically, the neighborhood of the Project site appears to have the same developmental progression from agricultural land to vacant unused land and residential uses.

EXISTING LAND USES
As shown in Figure 3-4, Existing Surrounding Land Uses, the project site is surrounded by a residential subdivision and agricultural/vacant land to the north, agricultural/vacant land to the east, the San Jacinto Reservoir to the south, and agricultural/vacant land to the west, refer to Table 3-1, Land Uses Surrounding the Property. Existing conditions on the project site are shown in Figures 3-5a through 3- 5c, Existing Site Photographs.

Table 3-1
Land Uses Surrounding the Property
Direction Existing Land Use Existing General Plan
Land Use Existing Zoning
North SF Residential / Agriculture / Vacant Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, Low Density (RL)
East Agriculture / Vacant Low Density Residential (LDR) Residential, Low Density (RL)
South San Jacinto Reservoir Public Institutional (PI) Public Institutional (PI) West Agriculture Medium Density Residential (MDR) Residential, Medium Density (RM)
Note: SF = Single Family

LAND USE PLANNING PROGRAMS
Table 3-1 shows the City of San Jacinto’s existing GP and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding land uses. The City of San Jacinto GP Land Use Policy Map designates the property as Low Density Residential (LDR) at 2.0 to 7.0 dwelling units(du) per gross acre. The LDR designation is for single-family detached residential uses and accessory buildings. This designation allows a maximum density of up to 7.0 du per net acre. The land use density of the project is 4.42 du/acre making it consistent with the existing GP.

The City of San Jacinto Zoning Map identifies the project site as Residential, Low Density (RL). The RL zone is applied to areas appropriate for a range of detached single-family residential dwellings on standard suburban parcels, together with appropriate accessory structures and uses. This zone allows a density ranging from 2.1 to 5.0 du/acre, which is consistent with the density of the proposed project.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 3-6 Project Description

RELEVANT REGIONAL PLANNING PROGRAMS
Table 3-2, Relevant Planning Programs/Plans, is the listing of planning programs and plans that are relevant to the property. Additional information for each planning program and plan is provided in Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis.

Table 3-2
Relevant Planning Programs/Plans
Environmental Issue Relevant Regional Planning Program/Plan Air Quality South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management Plan Water Quality Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana River Basin Plan Regional Planning Southern California Association of Governments Connect SoCal (also known as the 2020 – 2045 RTP/SCS)

3.4 Project Characteristics
The proposed project consists of a residential development located on an approximately 96-acre project site. The development of up to 424 single-family detached homes would be within approximately 87.09 acres and the remaining approximately 8.91 acres would be comprised of combined park, open space and landscape areas. The overall land use density of the project and the existing zoning is deemed consistent as a matter of law, as described above.

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
The project would require approval of a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) to allow for the development of the project; refer to Figure 3-6, Tentative Tract Map. A summary of land uses provided on the TTM are shown in Table 3-3, Land Use Statistical Summary.

Table 3-3
Land Use Statistical Summary
Lots Land Use Size
1 – 424 424 Single-Family Residential Lots 87.09 acres
Lot A McLeish Park/Water Quality Bioretention Basin 7.55 acres Lot B, C, D, E, F Linear Park/MWD & EMWD Waterline Easement and Landscape Open Space 1.36 acres Gross Acreage 96.00 acres

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The project would require obtaining a Planned Development Permit, pursuant to the requirements of the City’s Development Code, Chapter 17.620 — Planned Development Permits. Planned Development Permits are intended to: (A) ensure efficient use of land and a better living environment, (B) ensure high standards of environmental quality, and (C) provide for enhanced amenities.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 3-4
Exis ng Surrounding Land Uses
Source: Google Earth Pro; June 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 171
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 409
Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

1. View from Ranch View Lane looking northwest.

2. View from Ranch View Lane looking southeast.

3. View from project site close to Ranch View Lane looking south.

4. View from the project site looking southeast.

5. View from the northwest corner of the project site looking east.

6. View from the middle of the project site looking south.

MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 3-5a
Exis ng Site Photographs

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

7. View from the project site looking east.

8. View from the project site looking west.

9. View from project site looking north towards exis ng residen al.

10. View from the project site looking north towards exis ng residen al.

11. View from Poer Lane looking east.

12. View from Po er Lane looking west.

MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 3-5b
Exis ng Site Photographs

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

13. View from the project site near Po er Lane looking southwest.

14. View from the project site near Poer Lane looking south.

15. View from the project site near Poer Lane looking east.

16. View from the project site looking towards Po er Lane.

MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 3-5c
Exis ng Site Photographs

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) 177
9 177 33
24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 11 1 16 TR 31037
APN 436-050-001, 016-023
LAND USE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
ZONE: RL
TRACT 31037-1
MB 371/75-78
APN 436-060-001,002,018-026
TRACT 31037-3
MB 416/96-101
APN
TRACT 31037
MB
APN 436-080-009
APN 436-080-005
LAND USE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
ZONE: RL
APN 436-080-004

SAN JACINTO RESERVOIR
LAND USE: PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL
ZONE: PI
APN 436-080-003
APN 436-030-001
LAND USE: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
ZONE: RM
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
SEE SHEET 3
SEE SHEET 2
SEE SHEET 4
SEE SHEET 4
0 200 400 600
1" = 200'
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38203

IN THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO
-
OWNER
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO(S).
436-080-001,002 AND 006

UTILITIES
SEWER
WATER
GAS

ELECTRIC

TELEPHONE
CABLE

NUMBER OF LOTS
424 PLUS 6 LETTERED LOTS

ACREAGE

SCHOOL DISTRICT

SAN JACINTO UNIFIED

SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY
AERIAL SURVEY BY AEROTECH SURVEYS, INC. DATED FEBRUARY, 2021

FLOOD PLAIN

PROPOSED ZONING EXISTING ZONING

PROPOSED LAND USE

ADJACENT LAND USE ZONING

96.0 GROSS ACRES WITHIN BOLD BOUNDARY
-
-
-
-
-

EXISTING LAND USE

CITY OF SAN JACINTO

EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

FRONTIER
ZONE X
COMMUNITY NO. 065056, DATED NOVEMBER 9, 2022

FRONTIER
RL RL
RL
RL/PI
RL
RM

NORTH - SFR

SOUTH - RESIDENCE

EAST - SFR

WEST - VACANT

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

JAB MILL CREEK, LLC
3161 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 425
IRVINE, CA 92612
(831) 383-8083

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

APPLICANT

WILLIAM INGHRAM

ROCKWELL LAND COMPANY
23986 ALLSO CREEK ROAD, #711
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677
(831) 383-8083
LOT 'A': WATER QUALITY MITIGATION AND RETENTION BASIN (7.55 ACRES).

LEGEND

EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT

EXISTING STREET LIGHT

EXISTING SEWER LINE

EXISTING WATER LINE

TOP OF PAVEMENT

PAD ELEVATION
EXISTING ELEV.\GRADE INFORMATION

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN

EXISTING CONTOUR
EXIST. FORCE MAIN

EXIST RECLAIMED WATER LINE
VICINITY MAP N.T.S.

TYPICAL STREET SECTION

LYON AVENUE-SECONDARY NTS

TYPICAL STREET SECTION

ROADS 'A' - 'S' NTS

TYPICAL STREET SECTION

DE ANZA DRIVE NTS

EASEMENT NOTES
NO. R T L
C1 530.00' 164.85' 17°49'17"

CURVE DATA
NO. BEARING DISTANCE
L1 N 44°56'03" E 322.77'
L2 N 50°42'10" E 682.84'
L3 N 42°26'22" W 275.58'
L4 N 89°54'50" W 325.00'
L5 N 00°05'07" E 672.55'
L6 N 47°31'39" E 694.10'

LINE DATA

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PARCEL 1: (APN: 436-080-001)
FARMS LOT 130 OF THE LANDS OF THE SAN JACINTO LAND ASSOCIATION, IN THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 8, PAGE 357 OF MAPS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDS.

PARCEL 2: (APN'S: 436-080-002 and 436-080-006)
PARCEL A AS SHOWN ON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 04-01, AS EVIDENCED BY DOCUMENT RECORDED JULY 19, 2004 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2004-0556773 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

A PORTION OF FARM LOT 132 OF THE LANDS OF THE SAN JACINTO LAND ASSOCIATION, IN THE CITY

OF SAN JACINTO, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 8, PAGE 357 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FARM LOT 132, BEING ALSO A POINT ON THE

BOUNDARY LINE OF THAT PORTION OF LAND INCLUDED WITHIN THAT CERTAIN FINAL DECREE OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 25, 1949 IN BOOK 1126, PAGE 549, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE NORTH 00° 20' 24" WEST ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID FINAL DECREE AND THE WEST LINE OF SAID FARM LOT 132, A DISTANCE OF 2640.51 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FARM LOT 132; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID FARM LOT 132 THE FOLLOWING COURSES;
NORTH 89° 38' 30" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 779.07 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF DE ANZA DRIVE; SOUTH 45° 22' 21" EAST ALONG CENTERLINE, A DISTANCE OF 2637.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID FARM LOT 132, BEING ALSO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE CENTERLINE OF LYON AVENUE; SOUTH 00° 21' 45" EAST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF LYON AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF 776.20 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FARM LOT 132; SOUTH 89° 38' 17" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 325.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 42° 53' 15" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 276.14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID FINAL DECREE; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE FOLLOWING COURSES; SOUTH 47° 06' 45" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 274.77 FEET; SOUTH 00° 32' 16" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 17.78 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FARM LOT 132; THENCE SOUTH 89° 38' 17" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF FARM LOT 132, A DISTANCE OF 1930.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

EXCEPTING FROM SAID FARM LOT 132, THE INTEREST INCLUDED WITHIN THAT CERTAIN FINAL DECREE OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 25, 1949 IN BOOK 1126, PAGE 549 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

ALSO EXCEPTING FROM SAID FARM LOT 132 THAT PORTION OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 03, 1950 IN BOOK 2484, PAGE 515 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

1. AN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, FOR PIPE LINE(S), BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 3, 1959 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 48219 IN BOOK 2484, PAGE 521, O.R.

2. AN EASEMENT GRANTED TO EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, A MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, FOR SEWAGE PURPOSES, BY DEED RECORDED JULY 7, 1964, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 82992, IN BOOK 3741, PAGE 30, O.R.

3. A RIGHT OF WAY FOR ROADS RUNNING PARALLEL WITH CENTRAL AVENUE, ALONG THE

OUTER LINES OF THE TWO TIERS OF LOTS BORDERING ON SAID AVENUE, OF THE WIDTH OF 30 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF SAID LINES, ALSO A RIGHT OF WAY OVER A STRIP OF LAND, 30 FEET WIDE, ON EACH SIDE OF THE SECTION AND QUARTER SECTION LINES

FOR ROAD OR FOR DITCHES OR PIPES FOR CONDUCTING AND DISTRIBUTING WATER, AS RESERVED IN DEED FROM A.O. PORTER, ET AL, TRUSTEES.

4. AN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF NEVADA-CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, RECORDED 14, 1939 IN BOOK 420, PAGE 277, O.R.

95.3 NET ACRES

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY: HIGH SENSITIVITY (HIGH B)
FAULT ZONE: NOT IN A FAULT ZONE.

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL: HIGH
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL: ACTIVE

BUILDING SETBACK LINE

TYPICAL BUILDING SETBACKS

BOUNDARY LINE
PORTION SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, S.B.M.

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
T.I. = 9.0
T.I. = 5.5
T.I. = 8.0
LOMR MAP REVISION APPROVED PER FEMA LETTER DATED 6/27/22.

FIRM EFFECTIVE ON THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE.

LOT 'B': LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE (7,021 S.F.).

LOT 'C': LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE (30,813 S.F.).

LOT 'D': LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE (5,341 S.F.).

LOT 'E': LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE (9,237 S.F.).

LOT 'F': LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE (6,705 S.F.).

MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 3-6
Tenta ve Tract Map
Source: Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering; September 9, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 175
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 413
Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 3-12 Project Description

OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPE PLAN
The project proposes 8.91 acres of open space and landscape areas, consisting of 7.55 acres of a community park site and 1.36 acres of linear park/landscaped areas. The park and open space areas will provide a wide variety of amenities as shown in Figure 3-7, Community Amenities.

McLeish Park
The project includes plans for a 7.55-acre park area at the northwest corner of the project site as shown in Figure 3-8a, McLeish Park Enlargement. McLeish Park provides a large gathering open space area for the community that will provide active and passive recreation opportunities. The plan includes a baseball field, youth soccer fields, basketball courts, tennis/pickleball courts, a tot lot, a multipurpose lawn, jogging trails, restrooms, picnic tables, and shade structures. The park area will be designed as a self-retaining landscape and will also feature an infiltration basin for water quality treatment and management.

Linear Park
An approximately 1.36-acre linear park would extend through the community; refer to Figure 3-8b, Linear Park Enlargement. The linear park is designed with walking paths that promote walking and mental relaxation for its residents. Small seating areas would be provided to allow users to rest along the way.

Landscape Areas
The project design includes over one (1) acre of landscape area woven into the fabric of the community Conceptual Landscape Plan and Plant Palette as shown in Figure 3-9a, Conceptual Landscape Plan, and Figures 3-9b and 3-9c, Plant Palette. To establish community identity, a split face block community wall would be provided along the perimeter of the community. Interior and backyard privacy vinyl fencing would be provided at each home site; refer to Figure 3-10, Wall and Fence Plans.

CIRCULATION PLAN
Access to the new development would be provided from Lyon Avenue/De Anza Drive and Ranch View Lane. The project includes construction of the 4th leg (west leg) of the intersection of Lyon Avenue at De Anza Drive which would provide access to the eastern portion of the community. With construction of the west leg, the intersection of Lyon Avenue at De Anza Drive will operate as a 4-leg, all-way, stopcontrolled intersection. Additionally, the existing Ranch View Lane, which currently terminates at the northwest portion of the project site, would be improved to provide access to the community. The project would construct the west leg of the existing intersection of Lyon Avenue at De Anza Drive in order to provide access to the eastern portion of the project site. The westbound approach along De Anza Drive is proposed to convert the exclusive westbound right-turn lane into a shared through/righttun lane. The proposed west leg (i.e., 4th leg of existing intersection) would provide one (1) exclusive eastbound left-turn lane and one (1) shared through/right-turn lane. Appropriate signage and striping would be installed to maintain all-way stop control. These project-specific improvements are subject to approval by the City of San Jacinto.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

LINEAR PARK
Walking Paths
Nature Immersion
Respites

HARDSCAPE / FURNITURE
Enhanced Paving
Shade Structure
Trail Lighting
Picnic Tables

SPORTS PARK
Multi-Purpose Lawn
Jogging Trail
Sports Fields/Courts
Restrooms
Shade
Tot Lot

TOT LOT
Children’s Play (2-5)
Children’s Play (5-12)
Seating
Drinking Fountain
Shade
MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 3-7
Community Ameni es
Source: BrightView; May 5, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 177
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 415
Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) 1 1
1 1
1 2
2 3
3 4
4 5
5 6
6 7
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
11 12
12 13
13 14
14 BASIN MULTI-PURPOSE LAWN

CONCRETE PATHWAY
5’ WIDE RUNNING/ JOGGING TRAIL

YOUTH SOCCER FIELD
BASKETBALL COURTS (1)
TENNIS COURTS (2)
OPTIONAL PICKLEBALL (8)

TOT LOT
PARKING LOT (31 SPACES)

RESTROOM

MAJOR LITTLE LEAGUE

BASEBALL FIELD

SHADE STRUCTURE

PICNIC TABLES IN DG

MONUMENT SIGN

MAINTENANCE ACCESS
LEGEND

DE ANZA DRIVE
STREET ‘S’

BASIN/SPORTS PARK
The basin park provides a large
gathering space for the community
with amenities such as sports fields,
tot lot, picnic areas and multipurpose event lawn. Landscaped slopes create a seamless transition
between elevation changes to
promote views towards the key
sports amenities. A jogging loop
stitches the different amenities
together while encouraging fitness
among the residents.

SCALE: 1”=30’-0”
MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 3-8a
McLeish Park Enlargement
Source: BrightView; May 5, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 178
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 416
Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) 1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
LEGEND
1 1
2 2
3 4
LEGEND

DE ANZA DRIVE
STREET ‘A’
STREET ‘M’ STREET ‘I’

LINEAR PARK
The linear park is designed as a
nature immersive exploratory space
with walking paths that promote
walking and mental rejuvenation for
its residents. A series of specialized
planting patterns provide a
multitude of visual experiences
along the way. Small seating and
picnic respites allow users to pause
and rest along the way.

MULTI-PURPOSE LAWN

CONCRETE PATHWAY

CONCRETE RESPITE AREAS WITH

SEATING

DG MAINTENANCE ACCESS
SCALE: NTS
MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 3-8b
Linear Park Enlargement
Source: BrightView; May 22, 2024.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 179
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 417
Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) 1 1
2 3
3 2

OVERALL NARRATIVE
The recreational landscape areas at
Mcleish ranch, create opportunities
for pedestrian amenities that range
from quiet walking paths, vibrant
sports programming and intimate
play. Naturalistic plant palette
will define the street character
to highlight the entry from Lyon
Avenue, and De Anza Drive as the
prominent community spine. The
planting design at the parks will
complement the site programming
to create a mix of open landscaped
zones to specialized planting
around pedestrian spaces.

BASIN/ SPORTS PARK

LINEAR PARK

ENHANCED ENTRY VIA LYON
AVE
LEGEND

DE ANZA DRIVE
STREET ‘A’
STREET ‘M’
STREET ‘Y’
STREET ‘S’
LYON AVE.

SAN DIEGO AQUADUCT
STREET ‘N’
STREET ‘F’
SCALE: 1”=150’-0”
MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 3-9a
Conceptual Landscape Plan
Source: BrightView; May 22, 2024.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 180
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 418
Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

PLANT PALETTE

FRONT YARD TYPICAL
SAN JACINTO IS IN USDA ZONE 9A
TREES

ARBUTUS UNEDO

CHIONATHUS RETUSUS

CHILOPSIS LINEARIS

X CHITALPA TASHKENTENSIS

ERIOBOTRYA DEFLEXA

LAGERSTREMON INDICA

PLATANUS RACEMOSA
PYRUS CALLERYANA ‘BRADFORD’

SOPHORA SECUNDIFLORA
SHRUBS
ARBUTUS UNDEO ‘COMPACTA’

ACACIA CULTRIFORMIS
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS ‘PACIFIC MIST’

BUDDLEJA DAVIDII

CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYLLA

CARPENTERIA CALIFORNICA

DIETES BICOLOR

DODONEA VISCOSA

ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM

HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA

HEUCHERA MAXIMA
LIGUSTRUM J. ‘TEXANUM’

LIRIOPE GIGANTEA

LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA
LEUCOPHYLLUM F. ‘COMPACTA’
LEUCOPHYLLUM F. ‘WHITE CLOUD’

MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA

ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS

SALVIA GREGGII

SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA

TECOMA X SPP

WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA

GROUNDCOVER

ACACIA REDOLENS

ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM
ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA ‘CYN GRAY’
BACCHARIS ‘PIGEON POINT’

LONICERA JAPONICA

MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM

ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS
SANTOLINA SPP.

VERBENA RIGIDA

WATER USE
LOW
MED.

LOW
MED.

MED.

LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MED.

MED.

LOW
LOW
MED.

MED.

LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
SIZE
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 1 GAL
MIN. 1 GAL
MIN. 1 GAL
MIN. 1 GAL
MIN. 1 GAL
MIN. 1 GAL
MIN. 1 GAL
MIN. 1 GAL
MIN. 1 GAL
MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 3-9b
Plant Pale e
Source: BrightView; May 5, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 181
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 419
Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

PLANT PALETTE

PARKS/OPEN SPACE/STREETSCAPE
SAN JACINTO IS IN USDA ZONE 9A
TREES

ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN

CEIBA SPECIOSA

CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS
CHILOPSIS LINEARIS ‘BUBBA’

CHIONATHUS RETUSUS

CINNAMONUM CAMPHORA

FRAXINUS ANGUSTIFOLIA

GINKGO BILOBA

LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFERA

MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA
OLEA EUROPAEA ‘SWAN HILL’
PARKINSONIA X ‘DESERT MUSEUM’ ’

PLATANUS RACEMOSA

PROSOPIS GLANDULOSA

PINUS HALEPENSIS

PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR

QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA

QUERCUS KELLOGGII

QUERCUS LOBATA

QUERCUS SUBER

TIPUANA TIPU

ZELKOVA SERRATA
SHRUBS
ARBUTUS UNDEO ‘COMPACTA’

ACACIA CULTRIFORMIS
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS ‘PACIFIC MIST’

BOUTELOUA GRACILIS

CALLIANDRA ERIOPHYLLA

CAREX TUMULICOLA

ELYMUS GLAUCUS

ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM

EPILOBIUM CANUM

GAMBELIA SPECIOSA

HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA

HEUCHERA MAXIMA
LIGUSTRUM J. ‘TEXANUM’

LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA
LEUCOPHYLLUM F. ‘WHITE CLOUD’

MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS
PENNISETUM ‘FAIRY TAILS’

RHUS OVATA

SALVIA GREGGII

SALVIA LEUCOPHYLLA

TECOMA X SPP

WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA

WATER USE
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MED.

MED.

HIGH
MED.

LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
MED.

LOW
MED.

MED.

LOW
MED.

MED.

LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MED.

LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
MED.

MED.

LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
SIZE
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 15 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MIN. 5 GAL
MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 3-9c
Plant Pale e
Source: BrightView; May 5, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 182
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 420
Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 3-10
Wall and Fence Plans
Source: BrightView; May 24, 2024.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 183
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 421
Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 3-20 Project Description
The City of San Jacinto General Plan Mobility Element classifies Lyon Avenue as a Major Roadway with 100 feet of right-of-way and four (4) travel lanes. The project would dedicate 26 feet of right-of-way along the project frontage and would improve the western portion of the roadway for the project frontage with a 56-foot-wide asphalt paving and the construction of a pedestrian sidewalk as well as a Class I Multipurpose Trail, in accordance with City of San Jacinto Trails Master Plan.

De Anza Drive is classified as a Major Roadway with a right-of-way of 100 feet and four (4) travel lanes.

The project would dedicate a right-of-way of 78 feet from Lyon Avenue to the westerly property line.

Additionally, the project would improve 44 feet of the roadway with asphalt paving, including curb, gutter, 6-foot-wide sidewalk, and an 11-foot wide of landscaping.

Ranch View Lane is classified as a Local Roadway with 66 feet of right-of-way and two (2) travel lanes.

The project would dedicate necessary right-of-way to accommodate the full width of the roadway and would improve 44 feet of the roadway with asphalt paving. The existing offset cul-de-sac at the southerly terminus of Ranch View Lane would be removed and would be fully reconstructed to provide for a through street.

Internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation would be accessible on new streets and sidewalks that would be publicly maintained in the future. The interior project streets would have a right-of-way of 60 feet, including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Parking would be accommodated in two-car garages, two-car driveways, and on public streets.

Multi-Purpose Trail
In accordance with the City of San Jacinto GP the project would dedicate 26 feet of right-of-way on the project frontage along Lyon Avenue to construct a Class I Multi-use path and pedestrian sidewalk. The Class I Multi-Use Path would be designed and constructed to improve the western portion of the roadway for the project frontage with a 56-foot-wide in accordance with City of San Jacinto Trails Master Plan.

INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
Drainage
A comprehensive Drainage Plan and Water Quality Management Plan has been prepared for the project; refer to Figure 3-11, Water Quality Drainage Map. The Drainage Plan consists of a series of catch basin storm drains that would convey surface water flows to a 7.55-acre bioretention basin that would serve as both a bio-retention basin and park site. The basin has been preliminarily designed to treat all impervious surfaces in the project including streets, concrete surfaces, and roofs. To further minimize runoff, the project has been designed with landscape areas and planters in key areas.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 3-11
Water Quality Drainage Map
Source: Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering; May 4, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 185
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 423
Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 3-22 Project Description
Water Service
Potable and fire flow water service for the project would be provided by the Eastern Municipal Water District. The project would construct a 6-inch water line system that would connect to an existing 12- inch water main along Lyon Avenue.

Sewer Service
Sewer service for the project would be provided by the Eastern Municipal Water District. The project would construct a 6-inch sewer line system that would connect to an existing 12-inch sewer main along Lyon Avenue.

Solid Waste Disposal
Solid waste disposal for the project would be provided by CRR, including solid waste, recyclables, green waste, food waste, construction and demolition waste and electronic waste. CRR would collect the solid waste and transport it to the Lamb Canyon Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill.

Dry Utilities
Dry utility providers for the project are shown in Table 3-4, Utility Providers.

Table 3-4
Utility Providers
Provider Utility
Electrical Service Southern California Edison
Gas Service Southern California Gas Company
Communication Frontier

PUBLIC SERVICES
Fire Protection Services
The City of San Jacinto contracts with the County of Riverside Fire Department for fire protection services. As shown in Table 3-5, Project Area Fire Stations, there are two (2) fire stations in the City of San Jacinto. The nearest fire station would be Station 25 located approximately 2.1 miles from the project site.

Table 3-5
Project Area Fire Stations
Station
Number Address Staffing/Equipment Distance to Site
Station 25 132 South San Jacinto Avenue, San
Jacinto
Type 1 Engine and has 3
personnel 2.1 miles
Station 78 2450 Cottonwood Avenue, San
Jacinto
Type 1 Engine and has 3
personnel 2.9 miles

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 3-23 Project Description
Police Protection Services
The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department maintains a Police Station at 160 W. 6th Street in the City of San Jacinto. This County Sheriff’s station would provide police protection to the project site. Services offered by the Sherriff’s Department include police patrol, traffic enforcement, Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS), investigations, bicycle patrol, canine team, Allied Riverside Cities Narcotics Enforcement Team (ARCNET), animal control, police explorers, citizen volunteers, Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE), and neighborhood watch.

School Services
The project site is within the San Jacinto Unified School District (SJUSD). Table 3-6, SJUSD School Generation Factors for Single-Family Detached Units, shows the closest schools to the project site and the District’s Student Generation Rates for single-family detached homes. As shown in Table 3-6, the project would generate an estimated 304 students.

Table 3-6
SJUSD School Generation Factors for Single-Family Detached Units School Level Name School Location
Student
Generation/
Unit
Number of
New Students
Elementary De Anza Elementary School 1089 De Anza Avenue 0.3352 142 Intermediate Monte Vista Middle School 425 North Lyon Avenue 0.1652 70 High School San Jacinto High School 500 Idyllwild Avenue 0.2165 92 Total Students 304
Source: San Jacinto Unified School District, School Fee Justification Study, March 25, 2022.

3.5 Project Phasing and Construction
Project construction stages would include site preparation, import of fill soils, grading, building construction, underground utility construction, export of lot spoils, and street paving. Project construction is estimated to start in April 2024 and last approximately six (6) years. The proposed project would require 91,130 cubic yards of cut and 152,100 cubic yards of fill material. To meet the fill requirements, the project would need to import 164,962 cubic yards of material. The estimated construction schedule is shown below.

SCHEDULE
 Site Preparation – 60 working days (3 months)
 Grading, Utility, and Street Construction – 155 working days (7 months)  Building Construction – 1,090 working days (62 months)  Paving and Architectural Coatings (painting) – 110 working days (5 months)

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 3-24 Project Description

3.6 Required Project Permits and Approvals
The following discretionary approvals and permits are anticipated to be necessary for implementation of the proposed project:

City of San Jacinto Discretionary Approvals
 Adoption of Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist.  Planned Development Permit
 Tentative Tract Map (TTM) in accordance with Section 16.12.040 of the Municipal Code.  Site Plan and Design Review.

City of San Jacinto Ministerial and Approvals
 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).
 Conceptual Landscape Plan.
 Grading Permits.
 Encroachment Permit to construct streets and utilities.  Building Permits.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4-1 Environmentally Analysis

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist has been prepared for the proposed project because the Modified Initial Study concluded that the proposed project would not result in peculiar significant unavoidable environmental impacts because the project has been determined consistent with the certified GPEIR. The following Sections 4.1 through 4.21, provide a discussion of the potential project impacts as identified in this Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist. Explanations are provided within each corresponding impact category in this analysis.

In accordance with CEQA, this analysis relies on the City of San Jacinto GPEIR (2022) to the extent appropriate/warranted (Public Resources Code 21083.3; CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning and 15168.1 Program EIR).

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This Modified Initial Study/15183 Checklist analyzes the potential construction related and long-term operation environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and within the context of the GP and GPEIR. The issue areas evaluated include:
 Aesthetics  Mineral Resources
 Agriculture and Forestry Resources  Noise
 Air Quality  Population and Housing
 Biological Resources  Public Services
 Cultural Resources  Recreation
 Energy  Transportation
 Geology and Soils  Tribal Cultural Resources
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Utilities and Service Systems  Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Wildfire
 Hydrology and Water Quality  Mandatory Findings of Significance  Land Use and Planning

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4-2 Environmentally Analysis
This page was intentionally left blank.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.1-1 Aesthetics

4.1 Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:

Significant
Impact
Peculiar to the
Project or
Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the GPEIR
No Impact
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 GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed impacts related to aesthetics on pages 5.1-8 through 5.1-20. The GPEIR 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 GPEIR determined implementation of the GP would result in new development and intensification of existing urban uses throughout the City that may detract from the existing scenic vistas. However, the GP 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, Development Code1 the 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. The Development Code 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 GP is attractive and cohesive without diminishing the quality of the natural beauty of the general vicinity. Therefore, the GPEIR determined that implementation of the GP would have less than significant impacts related to scenic vistas.

The GPEIR 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 1 https://www.sanjacintoca.gov/city_departments/community-development/planning/zoning__development_code.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.1-2 Aesthetics
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 GPEIR describes that future development pursuant to the GP could occur adjacent to County eligible scenic highways. However, future development would be subject to conformance with applicable provisions of the Municipal Code2 and Development Code. 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 scenic resources associated with new development.

Therefore, the GPEIR determined implementation of the GP would not significantly impact scenic resources within a State scenic highway and impacts would be less than significant.

The GPEIR describes that construction activities for future development accommodated through implementation of the GP 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 GP would be temporary in nature and all construction equipment would ultimately be removed from individual project sites following completion of construction activities. Therefore, the GPEIR 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 GPEIR also determined that the long-term visual character of the City would change with implementation of the GP; however, implementation of policies and actions contained in the GP and compliance with the Development Code 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 GPEIR determined implementation of the GP 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 GPEIR also details that future development accommodated through implementation of the GP 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 Development Code requirements and guided by GP 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 GPEIR determined implementation of the GP would not result in adverse light and glare impacts and impacts would be less than significant.

PROJECT ANALYSIS
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.1- 8 through 5.1-10. The City of San Jacinto and the surrounding areas do possess numerous visual resources that contribute to San Jacinto’s community image. Many scenic resources are found in the natural areas surrounding the City, while within San Jacinto visual resources include natural parks and trails, as well as defining visual elements including trees, landscaping, and structures. According to the GPEIR, San Jacinto is located in a valley, and the City’s eastern and northern borders are largely defined by steep sloping hillsides and ridgelines associated with the San Jacinto Mountain Range. San Jacinto’s location in the valley along the foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains, provide it with scenic vistas 2 https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanJacinto/

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.1-3 Aesthetics
throughout the City. The summit of Mount San Jacinto is the highest point in the range. The mountain’s granite peaks and sub-alpine forests provide a scenic backdrop for San Jacinto. Scenic resources also include the Lakeview Mountains to the west, the San Jacinto Mountain foothills to the northeast, and the San Timoteo badlands to the northwest. Other features that contribute to the character of San Jacinto include public parks and open space, the density and distribution of existing development, architecture of the built environment, and the overall agricultural heritage of the area. The GPEIR concluded implementation of the General Plan impacts related to having a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would be less than significant.

The project site is currently undeveloped and does not contain any identified scenic resources. The project site is currently planned for residential development including agriculture lands located west and south of the project site. Because these agriculture lands are planned for residential development, they are not considered long-term permanent scenic resources. Additionally, there are no designated public vistas or park sites within the vicinity of the project site that provide public views of existing agriculture lands. Within the vicinity of the project site there are parks sites that provide distant public vistas of the mountainous scenic resources, including Colonel Lewis Millett Park, Potter Ranch Park, Sky View Park, Daniel Najera Park and Amaden Park. However, the project site is not within the viewshed of any of these park sites and would not substantially obstruct or modify public vistas of mountainous scenic resources or any other scenic resources.

The project would not impact views to The San Jacinto Mountains, Lakeview Mountains to the northeast or the San Timoteo badlands to the northwest and would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Land Use Policies 2.2, 3.1, 3.7, 5.1 through 5.3, 5.5, 5.7, and 5.8. Land Use Actions 3b, 3c, and 3e. Resource Management Policies 1.1,

1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 3.5, and 7.9. Resource Management Actions 1e and 1h. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.1-11 through 5.1-14. The GPEIR indicated that there were no Eligible or Designated State Scenic Highways within the GP area. The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is State Route 243, located approximately nine miles east of the GP area. The nearest Eligible State Route Scenic Highway is State Route 74, located approximately

1.8 miles south of the GP area Further, Development Code 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 GP area. Therefore, the GPEIR determined that implementation of the GP would not significantly impact scenic resources within a State scenic highway and impacts would be less than significant.

According to Caltrans, there are no designated or eligible State scenic highways within the viewshed of the proposed project. The project is also not located near Ramona Expressway, Lake Park Drive, or the segment of Soboba Road/Gilman Springs Road, which have been designated by Riverside County as County eligible scenic highways. Therefore, no impacts to scenic resources along a State scenic highway would occur. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.1-4 Aesthetics
would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Land Use Policies 2.2, 3.1, 3.7, 5.1 through 5.3, 5.5, 5.7, and 5.8. Land Use Actions 3b, 3c, and 3e. Resource Management Policies 1.1,

1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 3.1, 3.5, 3.6, and 7.9. Resource Management Actions 1e, 1h, 3b, and 3o. 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?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.1- 15 through 5.1-18. The GPEIR determined changes to local visual character and quality associated with construction of future development would be temporary, and impacts would be less than significant.

It also determined that implementation of policies and actions contained in the GP and compliance with the Development Code would ensure that new development would be designed to enhance the visual quality of the area and be visually compatible with existing development and open space resources. Impacts would be less than significant.

The project site is adjacent to existing agricultural, vacant and residential land uses and considered to be within a developing urbanized setting. The applicable planning program that governs the scenic quality of the project would be the City of San Jacinto GP and Development Code.

The project proposes a single-family residential community at a density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre, which would be consistent with the GP and Zoning. The project is consistent with the following policies and actions of the GP that apply to the project and the project site:
 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 RM-1.2: Scenic Resources. Encourage the preservation of San Jacinto’s scenic resources, including mature trees, rock outcroppings, hillsides, ridgelines, and other prominent natural landforms, to the extent practical.

The architecture of proposed residential uses would be subject to the City’s Site Plan and Design Review process to ensure that the project is compatible with existing residential uses near the project site and that the project would not reduce the visual character of the project area. In accordance with Chapter 17.630 of the Development Code, the project would be subject to the Site Plan and Design Review process. As part of the Site Plan and Design Review process the proposed project would be evaluated on the criteria identified below.
 Compliance with Development Code and all other applicable City regulations and policies.  Efficient site layout and design.
 Compatibility with neighboring properties and developments.  Efficiency and safety of public access and parking.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.1-5 Aesthetics
 The arrangement and relationship of proposed structures and signs to one another and to other developments in the vicinity and whether the relationship is harmonious and based on good standards of design.
 The compatibility in scale and aesthetic treatment of proposed structures with public areas.  The adequacy of proposed driveways, landscaping, parking spaces, potential onsite and offsite parking and traffic impacts and other potential impacts upon the environment.  Appropriate open space and use of water efficient landscaping.  Consistency with the GP and any applicable specific plan.  Consistency with any adopted design guidelines/standards.

Through the Site Plan and Design Review process, the City would determine that the project design is compatible with surrounding development and neighborhoods, conforms to City site plan development standards and applicable special design guidelines, and provides for safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation, both onsite and offsite; City services are available and adequate to serve the project; and that the proposed project has been designed to fully mitigate or substantially minimize adverse environmental effects. Additionally, the proposed project would also be subject to Design Review which would review the project for compatibility with the scale, massing, orientation, and articulation of the surrounding development and would preserve or enhance the existing neighborhood character. Compliance with the City of San Jacinto Site Plan and Design Review processes would ensure that the proposed project has been designed to meet the City’s design vision and aesthetic standards and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Short-term construction-related activities would temporarily alter the existing visual character of the project site. The visual impact associated with construction activities would involve graded surfaces, construction materials, and equipment. Soil would be stockpiled and equipment for grading activities would be staged at various locations. In addition, temporary structures could be located on the respective development site during various stages of construction within materials storage areas.

Exposed trenches, roadway bedding, spoils/debris piles, and steel plates may be visible during construction of proposed street and utility infrastructure improvements. These construction activities and equipment could temporarily degrade the existing visual character and quality of the project site but not substantially. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Land Use Policies 2.2, 3.1, 3.7, 5.1 through 5.3, 5.5, 5.7, and 5.8. Land Use Actions 3b, 3c, and 3e. Resource Management Policies 1.1,

1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 3.5, and 7.9. Resource Management Actions 1e and 1h.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.1-6 Aesthetics
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.1- 19 through 5.1-20. The GPEIR determined that pursuant to the Development Code Section 17.600.090, all future land use and development review applications would undergo environmental review on a project-by-project basis prior to consideration by the decision-making authority. If necessary, mitigation would be recommended on a project-by-project basis to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not result in adverse light and glare impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.

The area surrounding the project is currently developed and/or undergoing a residential development transition from agricultural/vacant land uses to residential/urbanized land uses that provide various levels of nighttime lighting. The operation of the proposed project would introduce new permanent sources of lighting into the project area. All new development projects in the City are required to meet the Outdoor Light and Glare Standards provided in Section 17.300.080 Development Code. These regulations are designed to limit light and glare to acceptable levels. The proposed lighting would be similar to the type and level of existing lighting provided in the project area and has been designed to ensure that all exterior lighting would be confined to the property to avoid spillover lighting impacts to adjoining properties. During City review of the project building plans, the proposed lighting fixtures would be evaluated to ensure the following, consistent with Section 17.300.080:

A. Exterior lights shall be located so as to eliminate spillover illumination or glare onto adjoining properties and to prohibit any interference with the normal operation or enjoyment of adjacent property.

B. Exterior lights shall be made up of a light source, reflector, and shielding devices so that, acting together, the light beam is controlled and not directed across a property line or upward into the sky. Bare bulbs shall not be allowed.

The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Construction activities for the proposed project would occur during the day. Therefore, no temporary nighttime construction lighting impacts would occur. With compliance with the Development Code Outdoor Light and Glare Standards potential light and glare impacts would be less than significant. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Land Use Action 3c.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.2-1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources

4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
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 Department 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:

Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project
or Project
Site
Significant
Impact due
to New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the GPEIR
No Impact
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 non-agricultural
use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
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 GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed impacts to agricultural and forestry resources on pages 5.2-7 through 5.2-12. The GPEIR determined implementation of the GP 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 GP does not require the preservation of designated farmland, implementation of the GP could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, the GPEIR determined that although the GP 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

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.2-2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources be a significant unavoidable impact. Additionally, the GPEIR 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 GP would not result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

PROJECT ANALYSIS
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 non-agricultural use? Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.2- 7 through 5.2-9. The GPEIR determined that buildout of the City Land Use Policy Map would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Wide Importance. The City of San Jacinto contains approximately 3,309 acres of Important Farmlands located within the GP area, including approximately 413 acres of Prime Farmland, 1,758 acres of Statewide Importance, and 1,138 acres of Unique Farmland. However, not all land designated as Important Farmlands (Prime, Statewide Importance, and Unique) are currently being utilized for agricultural uses. These lands are planned for future development and the GPEIR adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for potential loss of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Wide Importance for the conversion of these lands to non-agriculture land uses. It found mitigation measures, such as preservation of designated farmland, to be infeasible and to conflict with other objectives of the GP to proactively plan for and accommodate local and regional growth in a responsible manner. Although the GP includes policies and actions to support continued agricultural use (i.e., Policy LU-2.4, Action LU-2e, and Action LU-2f), the potential conversion of important farmlands to non-agricultural use is identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in the GPEIR.

According to the California Department of Conservation (CDC 2022) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, implementation of the proposed project would convert approximately 11 acres of Prime Farmland, approximately 75 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance and approximately 7 acres of Unique Farmland to non-agricultural uses (Note: approximately 3 additional acres would fall within one of these farmland categories but were not precisely quantified due to mapping limitations of the CDC database). Based on field survey observations and vegetation mapping conducted at the project site, approximately 4.3 acres were under agricultural use for cultivating alfalfa in March/April of 2022 and the majority of the site was under agricultural use for cultivating watermelon during a follow up field survey in July 2024. Although project implementation would permanently remove CDC mapped farmland, the project would construct a residential development consistent with the City General Plan’s long-term goals for the Project site. The project site would be able to continue agricultural operations until the proposed project is implemented, consistent with GP Policy LU-2.4. In addition, because the City of San Jacinto GPEIR adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the loss of agriculture resources, the proposed project conversion of existing agriculture resources to non-agriculture land uses would not be considered a significant impact peculiar to this project. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.2-3 Agricultural and Forestry Resources Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Land Use Policies 2.4. Land Use Actions 2e and 2f.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.2- 9 through 5.2-10. The GPEIR determined that, although the General Plan Update includes policies and actions to support continued agricultural use, the potential for future development to conflict with a preserved or Williamson Act contract would be a significant unavoidable impact.

As previously discussed, the project would convert approximately 11 acres of Prime Farmland, approximately 75 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance and approximately 7 acres of Unique Farmland to non-agricultural uses (CDC 2022) (Note: approximately 3 additional acres would fall within one of these farmland categories but were not precisely quantified due to mapping limitations of the CDC database); however, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. The project site is currently zoned Residential Low Density. Development of the site would not conflict with any lands zoned for agriculture uses. According to the property title, the project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact regarding potential conflicts with existing agriculture zoning or Williamson Act contracts on the property. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Land Use Policies 2.4. Land Use Actions 2f.
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 Impact: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on page 5.2-4. The GPEIR determined there are no forest lands or timber lands or parcels that are currently zoned as forest land, timber, or timber production. Therefore, implementation of the GP would have no impact on forest land, timber, or timber production.

The project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land or timber land.

The proposed project is currently zoned Residential Low Density and would not cause a rezone of lands that are zoned for forest land or timberland. Therefore, no impacts to forest land, timberland or lands zoned for timberland would occur. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: None are required. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on page 5.2-4. The GPEIR determined there are no forest lands or timber lands or parcels that are currently zoned as forest land, timber, or timber

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.2-4 Agricultural and Forestry Resources production. Therefore, implementation of the GP would have no impact on forest land, timber, or timber production.

The project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

There are no existing forest lands or timberland resources on the property and the project site is not zoned for timberland production. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: None are required. 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?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.2- 4 and 5.2-10 through 5.2-11. The GPEIR determined that, although implementation of the GP policies and actions and the Development Code would assist in reducing the potential for some existing Farmland to convert to non-agricultural uses, it is anticipated that changes in the existing environment associated with future development anticipated by the GP would result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Forest lands and resources are not within the GP area; therefore, no impacts would occur.

As previously discussed, the project would convert approximately 11 acres of Prime Farmland, approximately 75 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance and approximately 7 acres of Unique Farmland to non-agricultural uses (CDC 2022). Based on field survey observations and vegetation mapping conducted at the site, approximately 4.3 acres were under agricultural use for cultivating alfalfa in March/April of 2022 and the majority of the site was under agricultural use for cultivating watermelon during a follow up field survey in July 2024. The project site would be able to continue agricultural operations until the proposed project is implemented, consistent with GP Policy LU-2.4.

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. The construction and operation of the proposed project would be confined to the project site and would not cause any offsite conversion of farmland or forest land to non-agriculture uses or non-forest uses. Impacts would be less than significant. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Land Use Policies 3.6. Land Use Actions 3e.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-1 Air Quality

4.3 Air Quality
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:

Significant
Impact
Peculiar to the
Project or
Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the GPEIR
No Impact
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 non-attainment
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 adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed impacts related to air quality on pages 5.3-27 through 5.3-43. The GPEIR determined construction of the development anticipated by the GP 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 GPEIR found that constructionrelated daily emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The GPEIR determined operational emissions associated with the future development accommodated by the GP would generate criteria air pollutant emissions from additional vehicle trips traveling within the City, additional use of energy sources such as natural gas combustion, and additional area sources such as landscaping equipment and consumer products usage. Operational air emission modeling included as part of the GPEIR found that potential operational emissions from buildout of the GP would also exceed regulatory thresholds (for VOC, NOX, carbon monoxide [CO], PM10, and PM2.5). The GP incorporated feasible mitigation measures into the policies and actions included within the GP. 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 GP 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-byproject basis, as necessary. Therefore, impacts are significant and unavoidable.

The GPEIR determined future construction activities under the GP has the potential to temporarily emit criteria air pollutants through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, through vehicle

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-2 Air Quality
trips generated by workers and haul trucks, and through fugitive dust emission resulting from demolition and various soil-handling activities. The GPEIR modeled air emissions that could result from buildout of the GP and found that construction-related daily emissions would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOCs, resulting in a potentially significant impact. The GPEIR determined operation of future development accommodated by the GP 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 GPEIR determined operational emissions for future development accommodated by the GP would exceed regulatory thresholds for VOC, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5, resulting in a potentially significant impact.

The GP includes policies and actions that would potentially reduce emissions. Additionally, future development under the GP 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 GPEIR determined impacts related to increases of criteria air pollutants would be significant and unavoidable.

The GPEIR determined future development under the GP would be required to comply with AQMP, SIP, CARB, SCAQMD regulations, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and the proposed GP 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 could not be calculated, as the details of potential future projects are not known. Therefore, the GPEIR determined impacts related to localized operational impacts, construction and operational health and toxic air impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The GPEIR 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 GP 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 GPEIR determined implementation of the GP would not create operational-related objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people within the City and impacts would be less than significant.

PROJECT ANALYSIS
The following analysis is based on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis prepared by Vista Environmental dated September 14, 2023. The report is presented in its entirety in Appendix A.

Background
Air pollutants are generally classified as either criteria pollutants or non-criteria pollutants. Federal ambient air quality standards have been established for criteria pollutants, whereas no ambient standards have been established for non-criteria pollutants. For some criteria pollutants, separate standards have been set for different periods. Most standards have been set to protect public health.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-3 Air Quality
For some pollutants, standards have been based on other values (such as protection of crops, protection of materials, or avoidance of nuisance conditions).

CRITERIA POLLUTANTS AND OZONE PRECURSORS
The criteria pollutants consist of ozone, NOX, CO, SOX, lead (Pb), and particulate matter (PM). The ozone precursors consist of NOX and VOC. These pollutants can harm human health and the environment, and cause property damage. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calls these pollutants “criteria” air pollutants because it regulates them by developing human health based and/or environmentally based criteria for setting permissible levels. The following provides descriptions of each of the criteria pollutants and ozone precursors:
 Nitrogen Oxides: Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) is the generic term for a group of highly reactive gases which contain nitrogen and oxygen. While most NOX are colorless and odorless, concentrations of Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) can often be seen as a reddish-brown layer over many urban areas.

NOX forms when fuel is burned at high temperatures, as in a combustion process. The primary man-made sources of NOX are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn fuel. NOX reacts with other pollutants to form, ground-level ozone, nitrate particles, acid aerosols, as well as NO2, which causes respiratory problems. NOX and the pollutants formed from NOX can be transported over long distances, following the patterns of prevailing winds.
 Ozone: Ozone (O3) is not usually emitted directly into the air but in the vicinity of ground-level and is created by a chemical reaction between NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOX and VOC that help form ozone. Groundlevel ozone is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground-level ozone to form with the greatest concentrations usually occurring downwind from urban areas.

Ozone is subsequently considered a regional pollutant. Ground-level ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. Because NOX and VOC are ozone precursors, the health effects associated with ozone are also indirect health effects associated with significant levels of NOX and VOC emissions.
 Carbon Monoxide: Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas that is formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely. It is a component of motor vehicle exhaust, which contributes approximately 56% of all CO emissions nationwide. In cities, 85% to 95% of all CO emissions may come from motor vehicle exhaust. Other sources of CO emissions include industrial processes (such as metals processing and chemical manufacturing), residential wood burning, and natural sources such as forest fires. Woodstoves, gas stoves, cigarette smoke, and unvented gas and kerosene space heaters are indoor sources of CO. Since CO concentrations are strongly associated with motor vehicle emissions, high CO concentrations generally occur in the immediate vicinity of roadways with high traffic volumes and traffic congestion, active parking lots, and in automobile tunnels. Areas adjacent to heavily traveled and congested intersections are particularly susceptible to high CO concentrations. High levels of CO can affect even healthy people. People who breathe high levels of CO can develop vision problems, reduced ability to work or learn, reduced manual dexterity, and difficulty performing complex tasks. At extremely high levels, CO is poisonous and can cause death.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-4 Air Quality
 Sulfur Oxides: Sulfur Oxide (SOX) gases are formed when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil is burned, as well as from the refining of gasoline. SOX dissolves easily in water vapor to form acid and interacts with other gases and particles in the air to form sulfates and other products that can be harmful to people and the environment.  Lead: Lead (Pb) is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been vehicles and industrial sources. Due to the phase out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is now the primary source of lead emissions into the air. High levels of lead in the air are typically only found near lead smelters, waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers. Exposure of fetuses, infants, and children to low levels of Pb can adversely affect the development and function of the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and lower intelligence quotient. In adults, increased lead levels are associated with increased blood pressure.
 Particulate Matter: Particle matter (PM) is the term for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. PM is made up of several components including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10) that are also known as Respirable Particulate Matter are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects. Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5) that are also known as Fine Particulate Matter have been designated as a subset of PM10 due to their increased negative health impacts and its ability to remain suspended in the air longer and travel further.  Volatile Organic Compounds: Hydrocarbons are organic gases that are formed from hydrogen and carbon and sometimes other elements. Hydrocarbons that contribute to the formation of O3 are referred to and regulated as VOCs (also referred to as reactive organic gases).

Combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and fossil-fueled power plants are the sources of hydrocarbons. Other sources of hydrocarbons include evaporation from petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint. VOC is not classified as a criteria pollutant since VOCs by themselves are not a known source of adverse health effects. The primary health effects of VOCs result from the formation of O3 and its related health effects. High levels of VOCs in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing the amount of available oxygen through displacement. Carcinogenic forms of hydrocarbons, such as benzene, are considered toxic air contaminants (TACs). There are no separate health standards for VOCs as a group.

OTHER POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Toxic Air Contaminants: In addition to the above-listed criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. TACs is a term that is defined under the California Clean Air Act and consists of the same substances that are defined as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) in the Federal Clean Air Act. There are over seven hundred different types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Cars and trucks release at least forty different toxic air contaminants. The most important of

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-5 Air Quality
these TACs, in terms of health risk, are diesel particulates, benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations as well as from accidental releases. Health effects of TACs include cancer.

Asbestos: Asbestos is listed as a TAC by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and as a HAP by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Asbestos occurs naturally in mineral formations and crushing or breaking these rocks, through construction or other means, can release asbestiform fibers into the air. Asbestos emissions can result from the sale or use of asbestos-containing materials, road surfacing with such materials, grading activities, and surface mining. The risk of disease is dependent upon the intensity and duration of exposure. When inhaled, asbestos fibers may remain in the lungs and with time may be linked to such diseases as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma.

Existing Setting
The project site is located within the western portion of Riverside County, which is part of South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The air quality at the project site is addressed through the efforts of various international, federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policymaking, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving the air quality are discussed below.

FEDERAL
The EPA handles global, international, national, and interstate air pollution issues and policies. The EPA sets national vehicle and stationary source emission standards, oversees approval of all State Implementation Plans, conducts research, and provides guidance in air pollution programs and sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), also known as federal standards. There are six (6) common air pollutants, called criteria air pollutants, which were identified resulting from provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1970. The six (6) criteria pollutants are Ozone, Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5), Nitrogen Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Lead and Sulfur Dioxide. The NAAQS were set up to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals.

NAAQS pollutants were identified using medical evidence and are shown in Table 4.3-1, State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards.

Table 4.3-1
State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards
Air Pollutant
Concentration/Averaging Time
Most Relevant Effects
California Standards Federal Primary
Standards
Ozone (O3)

0.09 ppm / 1-hour

0.07 ppm / 8-hour

0.070 ppm, / 8-hour
(a) Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung injury in humans and animals; (b) asthma exacerbation; (c) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation; (d)
respiratory infection; (e) increased school absences, and hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) visits for combined respiratory diseases; (f) increased mortality; (g) possible metabolic effects.

Vegetation damage; Property damage.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-6 Air Quality
Air Pollutant
Concentration/Averaging Time
Most Relevant Effects
California Standards Federal Primary
Standards
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)

20.0 ppm / 1-hour

9.0 ppm / 8-hour

35.0 ppm / 1-hour

9.0 ppm / 8-hour
Visibility reduction (a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of coronary heart disease; (b) Decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c) possible impairment of central nervous system functions; (d) Possible increased risk to fetuses; (e) possible increased risk of pulmonary disease; (f) possible emergency department visits for respiratory diseases overall and visits for asthma.

Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)

0.18 ppm / 1-hour

0.030 ppm / annual
100 ppb / 1-hour

0.053 ppm / annual
Short-term (a) asthma exacerbations (“asthma attacks”). Longterm (a) asthma development; (b) higher risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortality. Both short and long term NO2 exposure is also associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) risk. Potential impacts on
cardiovascular health, mortality and cancer, aggravate chronic respiratory disease. Contribution to atmospheric discoloration.

Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)

0.25 ppm / 1-hour

0.04 ppm / 24-hour
75 ppb / 1-hour
Respiratory symptoms (bronchoconstriction, possible wheezing or shortness of breath) during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma. Possible allergic sensitization, airway inflammation, asthma development.

Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
50 µg/m3 / 24-hour
20 µg/m3 / annual 150 µg/m3 / 24-hour
Short-term (a) increase in mortality rates; (b) increase in respiratory infections; (c) increase in number and severity of asthma attacks; (d) COPD exacerbation; € increase in combined respiratory-diseases and number of hospital admissions; (f) increased mortality due to cardiovascular or respiratory diseases; (g) increase in hospital admissions for acute respiratory conditions; (h) increase in school absences; (i) increase in lost work days; (j) decrease in respiratory function in children; (d) increase medication use in children and adults with asthma.

Long-term (a) reduced lung function growth in children; (b) changes in lung development; (c) development of asthma in children; (d) increased risk of cardiovascular diseases; (e) increased total mortality from lung cancer; (f) increased risk of premature death.

Possible link to metabolic, nervous system, and reproductive and developmental effects for short-term and long-term exposure to PM2.5.

Suspended
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
12 µg/m3 / annual 35 µg/m3 / 24-hour
12 µg/m3 / annual
Sulfates 25 µg/m3 / 24-hour No Federal Standards
(a) Decrease in lung function; (b) Aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; (c) Vegetation damage; (d) Degradation of visibility; and (e) Property damage.

Lead 1.5 µg/m3 / 30-day 0.15 µg/m3 /3- month
rolling
(a) Learning disabilities; (b) Impairment of blood formation and nerve function; (c) cardiovascular effects, including coronary heart disease and hypertension.

Possible male reproductive system effects.

Hydrogen
Sulfide 0.03 ppm / 1-hour No Federal Standards
Exposure to lower ambient concentrations above the standard may result in objectionable odor and may be accompanied by symptoms such as headaches, nausea, dizziness, nasal irritation, cough, and shortness of breath.

Source: Vista Environmental, Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis; September 14, 2023.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-7 Air Quality
As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with federal nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the national standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs within the timeframe identified in the SIP. The CARB defines attainment as the category given to an area with no violations in the past three years. As indicated in Table 4.3-2, California Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment Status – South Coast Air Basin, the SCAB has been designated by EPA for the national standards as a non-attainment area for ozone and PM10. Currently, the SCAB is in attainment with the national ambient air quality standards for CO, NO2, SO2, PM2.5, and lead.

Table 4.3-2
California Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment Status – South Coast Air Basin Criteria Pollutant Averaging Time Designationa) Attainment Dateb) Ozone
1-Hour 0.09ppm Nonattainment
8-hour 0.070 ppm Nonattainment
PM2.5 Annual 12µg/m3 Nonattainment
PM10
24-Hour 50 µg/m3 Nonattainment
Annual 20 µg/m3 Nonattainment
Lead 30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 Attainment
CO
1-Hour 20ppm Attainment
8-Hour 9.0ppm Attainment
NO2
1-Hour 0.18ppm Attainment
Annual 0.030ppm Attainmentc)
Sulfates 24-Hour 25 µg/m3 Attainment
SO2
1-Hour 0.25ppm Attainment
24-Hour 0.04ppm Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfidec) 1-Hour 0.03ppm Unclassified
Notes:
a) CA State standards, or CAAQS, for ozone, SO2, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are values not to be exceeded; lead, sulfates and H2S standards are values not to be equaled or exceeded; CAAQS are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
b) CA State designations shown were updated by CARB in 2019, based on the 2016‐2018 3‐year period; stated designations are based on a 3‐year data period after consideration of outliers and exceptional events. c) CA SR-60 near road portions of San Bernardino, Riverside and Los Angeles Counties has recently been redesignated as an attainment area based on data collected between 2018 and 2020.

Source: Vista Environmental, Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis; September 14, 2023.

STATE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
The California Air Resources Board (CARB), which is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, the CARB conducts research, sets the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. The CAAQS for criteria pollutants are shown above in Table 4.3-2. In addition, the CARB establishes emission standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (e.g., hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbeque lighter

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-8 Air Quality
fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.

The SCAB has been designated by the CARB as a non-attainment area for ozone and PM10. Currently, the SCAB is in attainment with the ambient air quality standards for CO, NO2, SO2, PM2.5, lead, and sulfates and is unclassified for visibility reducing particles and Hydrogen Sulfide.

REGIONAL
South Coast Air Quality Management District
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emission sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of AQMPs. The Final 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP) was adopted by CARB on January 26, 2023, and has been submitted to the USEPA for final approval, which is anticipated to occur sometime this year. The following lists the SCAQMD rules that are applicable to land development projects in the SCAB.
 Rule 402 – Nuisance. Rule 402 prohibits a person from discharging from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which causes injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. Compliance with Rule 402 will reduce local air quality and odor impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.  Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust. Rule 403 governs emissions of fugitive dust during construction activities and requires that no person shall cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust such that dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line or the dust emission exceeds 20% opacity if the dust is from the operation of a motorized vehicle. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard Best Available Control Measures, which include but are not limited to the measures below. Compliance with these rules would reduce local air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. − Utilize either a pad of washed gravel 50 feet long, 100 feet of paved surface, a wheel shaker, or a wheel washing device to remove material from vehicle tires and undercarriages before leaving the project site.
− Do not allow any track out of material to extend more than 25 feet onto a public roadway and remove all track out at the end of each workday. − Water all exposed areas on active sites at least three times per day and pre-water all areas prior to clearing and soil moving activities.
− Apply nontoxic chemical stabilizers according to manufacturer specifications to all construction areas that will remain inactive for 10 days or longer.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-9 Air Quality
− Pre-water all material to be exported prior to loading, and either cover all loads or maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
− Replant all disturbed area(s) as soon as practical.
− Suspend all grading activities when wind speeds (including wind gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.
− Restrict traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less.  Rules 1108 and 1108.1 – Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt. Rules 1108 and 1108.1 govern the sale, use, and manufacturing of asphalt and limits the VOC content in asphalt. This rule regulates the VOC contents of asphalt used during construction as well as any on-going maintenance during operations. Therefore, all asphalt used during construction and operation of the proposed project must comply with SCAQMD Rules 1108 and 1108.1.  Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings. Rule 1113 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of architectural coatings and limits the VOC content in sealers, coatings, paints and solvents. This rule regulates the VOC contents of paints available during construction. Therefore, all paints and solvents used during construction and operation of the proposed project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113.
 Rule 1143 – Paint Thinners. Rule 1143 governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of paint thinners and multi-purpose solvents that are used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment, and other solvent cleaning operations. This rule regulates the VOC content of solvents used during construction. Solvents used during construction and operation of the proposed project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1143.

Although the Connect SoCal and 2019 FTIP are primarily planning documents for future transportation projects, a key component of these plans isto integrate land use planning with transportation planning that promotes higher density infill development in close proximity to existing transit service. These plans form the basis for the land use and transportation components of the AQMP, which are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts and in the consistency analysis included in the AQMP. The Connect SoCal, 2019 FTIP, and AQMP are based on projections originating within the City and County GPs.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-10 Air Quality
LOCAL
City of San Jacinto
Local jurisdictions, such as the City of San Jacinto, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through its police power and decision-making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use decisions. The City is also responsible for the implementation of transportation control measures as outlined in the AQMPs.

Examples of such measures include bus turnouts, energy-efficient streetlights, and synchronized traffic signals. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the air quality impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant air quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation.

In accordance with the CEQA requirements, the City does not, however, have the expertise to develop plans, programs, procedures, and methodologies to ensure that air quality within the City and region will meet federal and state standards. Instead, the City relies on the expertise of the SCAQMD and utilizes the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction.

The City of San Jacinto Municipal Code, Chapter 15.30 provides the following requirements for controlling dust from construction projects that are applicable to the proposed project.

Section 15.30.010 Dust Control Measures
A. Ground Cover Removal Prohibited. No person shall disturb the topsoil or remove ground cover on any real property within the city limits and thereafter allow the property to remain unoccupied, unused, vacant, or undeveloped, unless reasonable actions are taken to ensure adequate weed abatement and prevention of the manmade generation of dust, including application of soil binders and installation of windbreaks, as described below. • Weed Abatement. Discing shall be permitted on any real property, including vacant property and property not actively used for agricultural operations, for the purpose of weed abatement. Discing includes the use of a row or rows of concave circular steel discs to cut and pitch the soil. Weed abatement activities may also be conducted using alternative methods, other than discing. When weed abatement is undertaken on vacant land, the following must also occur: (1) Property owners are responsible for clearing the property of any debris prior to undertaking weed abatement in order to decrease the risk of fire, and (2) When discing is utilized on any real property for weed abatement purposes, from May 1st through October 31st, active water trucks must follow the discing machinery to help decrease the risk of manmade dust and fire hazards.

B. Application of Soil Binders. For all property used for agricultural operations and inactive construction sites, soil binders shall be applied to exposed soil surfaces to temporarily prevent wind induced erosion. Soil binders are a site‐specific, environmentally benign material sprayed onto exposed soil.

C. Upwind Temporary Windbreaks. All construction sites (whether active or inactive) shall have installed temporary upwind windbreaks, including fabric fences at least four (4) feet above grade in height, and with the bottom of the fence sufficiently anchored to the ground to prevent material

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-11 Air Quality
from blowing underneath the fence. The temporary windbreaks and fabric fences shall always be maintained in an upright and functional condition until the state of emergency has been removed.

D. Watering or Chemical Dust Suppression. For all vacant land, paved or unpaved parking lots and roadways, property owners shall be responsible for watering or applying chemical suppressants to suppress dust creation. Unpaved parking lots include graded but unsurfaced areas used for occasional to moderately frequent vehicle parking and other purposes. Chemical suppressants include petroleum resins, asphaltic emulsions, acrylics, adhesives, or any other approved material that are not prohibited for use by the city, the California Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or any other law, rule, or regulation. Chemical suppressants shall be applied in amounts and rates recommended by the manufacturer and maintained as recommended by the manufacturer. (Ord. 17‐04 § 2: Ord. 07‐26 § 2) Air Quality Impact Threshold of Significance
Regional Air Quality Impacts. SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that any project in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. For the purposes of this air quality impact analysis, a regional air quality impact would be considered significant if emissions exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds identified in Table 4.3-3, SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance.

Table 4.3-3
SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Lead
Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 3
Operation 75 100 550 150 150 55 3
Notes:
1 The SCAQMD operational thresholds for the Coachella Valley are the same as the construction thresholds.

Source: Vista Environmental, Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis; September 14, 2023.

Local Air Quality Impacts
In order to assess local air quality impacts the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significant Thresholds (LSTs) to assess project-related air emissions in the project vicinity. SCAQMD has also provided Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology), July 2008, which details the methodology to analyze local air emission impacts. The LST Methodology found that the primary emissions of concern are NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

The LST Methodology provides Look-Up Tables with different thresholds based on the location and size of the project site and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors. As detailed above, the project site is located in the SCAB. The closest air quality monitoring station is Monitoring Area 28, which covers the Hemet and San Jacinto Valley. The Look-Up Tables provided in the LST Methodology include

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-12 Air Quality
project site acreage sizes of 1-acre, 2-acres, and 5-acres. The 5-acre project site values in the Look-Up Tables have been utilized in this analysis since that is the nearest size available for the project site.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are single‐family homes located as near as 15 feet (5 meters) northeast of the project site. According to LST Methodology, any receptor located closer than 25 meters (82 feet) shall be based on the 25-meter thresholds. Table 4.3-4, SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance, shows the LSTs for NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 for both construction and operational activities.

Table 4.3-4
SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance
Activity
Allowable Emissions (pounds/day)
NOX
CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction 325 1,677 11 7
Operation 325 1,677 3 2
Notes:
1 The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are single‐family homes located as near as 15 feet (5 meters) northeast of the project site.
2 According to SCAQMD methodology, all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25-meter threshold.

Source: Vista Environmental, Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis; September 14, 2023.

PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.3- 27 through 5.3-32. The GPEIR determined that, compliance with standard SCAQMD requirements (e.g., Rule 403 and Rule 1113) would be consistent with and meet or exceed the AQMP requirements for control strategies intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities.

Therefore, future construction emissions anticipated from GP implementation would be consistent with the AQMP. The GPEIR also determined construction jobs generated by future development accommodated by the GP would not conflict with the long-term employment or population projections upon which the AQMPs are based. The GPEIR also determined that operation of the proposed GP would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan and impacts would be less than significant.

The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable GPs and regional plans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). The regional plan that applies to the proposed project includes the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, this section describes any potential inconsistencies of the proposed project with the AQMP.

The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states that “New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP.” Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-13 Air Quality
not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two (2) key indicators of consistency and both are evaluated below.
(1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP, or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.

CRITERIA 1: INCREASE FREQUENCY OR SEVERITY OF VIOLATIONS Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this report, short-term regional construction air emissions would not result in significant impacts based on SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance or local thresholds of significance. The ongoing operation of the proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional basis and would not result in peculiar impacts based on SCAQMD thresholds of significance. The analysis for long-term local air quality impacts showed that local pollutant concentrations would not exceed the air quality standards.

Therefore, no peculiar long-term impact would occur. Therefore, based on the information provided above, the proposed project would be consistent with the first criterion.

CRITERIA 2: EXCEED ASSUMPTIONS GENERAL PLAN
Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the proposed project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The AQMP is developed through use of the planning forecasts provided in the RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) and FTIP (2019 FTIP). The RTP/SCS is a major planning document for the regional transportation and land use network within Southern California. The RTP/SCS is a long-range plan that is required by federal and state requirements placed on SCAG and is updated every four (4) years. The FTIP provides long-range planning for future transportation improvement projects that are constructed with state and/or federal funds within Southern California. Local governments are required to use these plans as the basis of their plans for the purpose of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this project, the City of San Jacinto GP’s Land Use Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in AQMP.

The project site is currently designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) in the GP Land Use Plan and is zoned Residential Low Density (RL), which allows for up to 7.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project consists of the development of 424 single‐family homes on a 96-acre project site, which would result in a density of 4.4 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is consistent with the current land use designation and would not require a GP Amendment. As such, the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the AQMP assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Land Use Policies 1.1. Resource Management Goals RM-4 and RM-5. Resource Management Policies 4.1, 4.2, 4.4 through 4.8, and

4.12. Resource Management Actions 4b, 4c, 4d, 4n, and 4o.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-14 Air Quality
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?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.3- 32 through 5.3-38. The GPEIR determined that construction activities associated with build out of the GP could lead to potentially significant short-term regional construction emissions associated with VOC. Operational impacts would also be potentially significant for VOC, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

Results of the GPEIR’s estimated maximum regional construction emissions and maximum regional operational emissions are shown below in Table 4.3-5, General Plan Maximum Regional Construction Emissions, and Table 4.3-6, General Plan Maximum Regional Operational Emissions (pounds/day).

Table 4.3-5
General Plan Maximum Regional Construction Emissions
Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 556.69 40.55 29.84 0.07 35.74 11.87 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Above Threshold? Yes No No No No No
Source: City of San Jacinto, GPEIR, Table 5.3-4.

Table 4.3-6
General Plan Maximum Regional Operational Emissions (pounds/day) Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 556.69 40.55 29.84 0.07 35.74 11.87 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Above Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Source: City of San Jacinto, GPEIR, Table 5.3-5.

While implementation of the GP’s policies and actions would reduce criteria pollutant emissions, the extent of impacts would need to be determined on a project-by-project basis, as necessary. Therefore, the GPEIR determined this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Implementation of the project would not 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 SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution: White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/EnvironmentalJustice/cumulative-impacts-working-group/cumulative-impacts-white-paper.pdf). In this report the AQMD clearly states (Page D-3):
“…the AQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-15 Air Quality
Report (EIR). The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for TAC emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative (facility- wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts. Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the projectspecific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.” Therefore, this analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions of regional criteria pollutants and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact.

Alternatively, individual project-related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project-specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable. A list of cumulative projects was provided by the City as part of the traffic scoping analysis for the project. A summary of related projects in the vicinity of the project site used in the cumulative analysis is presented in Table 4.21-1, Related Cumulative Projects. Additionally, Figure 4.21-1 provides a cumulative projects location map. Table 4.21-1 and Figure 4.21-1 can be found in Section 4.21 Transportation.

The following section calculates the potential air emissions associated with construction and operations of the proposed project and compares the emissions to the SCAQMD standards.

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include site preparation and grading of the approximately 96-acre project site, building construction of the single‐family homes, paving of the onsite roads, driveways, parking areas, sidewalks, and hardscapes, and application of architectural coatings. The estimated number of trips per day for each construction activity phase is found in the Impact Analysis in Appendix A.

Construction-Related Regional Impacts
The CalEEMod Version 2022.1 model has been utilized to calculate the construction-related emissions from the proposed project. The maximum daily construction-related criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed project are shown in Table 4.3-7, Construction-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions.

Table 4.3-7 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed either the regional or local emissions thresholds during construction of the proposed project. Comparing the results of the GP’s construction impacts shown in Table 4.3-5 to the project’s construction impacts shown in Table

4.3-7, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-16 Air Quality
Table 4.3-7
Construction-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions Season and Year of Construction
Maximum Daily Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Daily Summer Maximum
2024 4.58 42.6 36.8 0.06 9.61 4.96
2025 1.84 12.6 25.3 0.03 2.84 0.99
2026 1.75 11.9 24.4 0.03 2.78 0.94
2027 1.67 11.3 23.5 0.03 2.74 0.90
2028 1.61 10.8 22.8 0.03 2.70 0.87
2029 1.56 10.3 22.1 0.03 2.68 0.85
2030 1.44 10.0 21.5 0.03 2.66 0.83
2031 61.5 6.16 10.6 0.01 0.41 0.24
Daily Winter Maximum
2024 4.04 37.7 32.6 0.06 6.18 2.82
2025 3.65 32.7 30.6 0.06 5.92 2.58
2026 1.71 12.0 21.7 0.03 2.78 0.94
2027 1.63 11.5 21.1 0.03 2.74 0.90
2028 1.46 10.4 20.5 0.03 2.70 0.87
2029 1.42 10.1 20.0 0.03 2.68 0.85
2030 1.42 10.1 19.6 0.03 2.66 0.83
2031 61.5 9.74 19.1 0.03 2.65 0.81
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 61.5 42.6 36.8 0.06 9.61 4.96 SCQAMD Regional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
SCAQMD Local Thresholds1 -- 325 1,677 -- 11 7
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No
Notes:
1 The nearest offsite sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family homes located as near as 15 feet (5 meters) northeast of the project site. According to SCAQMD methodology, all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25- meter threshold. Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for two and five acres in Air Monitoring Area 28Hemet/San Jacinto Valley.

Reference: CalEEMod Version 2022.1
Source: Vista Environmental, Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis; September 14, 2023.

Local Air Quality Construction Impacts
The GPEIR did not provide a quantitative analysis of localized construction impacts because the exact nature and location of future developments are unknown and quantification of potential localized construction risk would be speculative. However, as construction of future developments would occur within close proximity to sensitive receptors, there would be potential for localized emissions to exceed regulatory levels. Therefore, The GPEIR determined localized construction emissions associated with GP implementation would be potentially significant. A project-specific quantitative analysis is provided below.

Construction-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The local air quality emissions from construction were analyzed through utilizing the methodology described in Localized Significance Threshold Methodology

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-17 Air Quality
(LST Methodology), prepared by SCAQMD, revised October 2009. The LST Methodology found the primary criteria pollutant emissions of concern are NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. To determine if any of these pollutants require a detailed analysis of the local air quality impacts, each phase of construction was screened using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables. The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD to readily determine if the daily onsite emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 from the proposed project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality.

Table 4.3-8, Construction-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions, shows the onsite emissions from the CalEEMod model for the different construction phases and the calculated localized emissions thresholds. Since it is possible that building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities could occur concurrently towards the end of the building construction phase, Table 4.3-8 also shows the combined local criteria pollutant emissions from year 2023 building construction, paving and architectural coating phases of construction.

Table 4.3-8
Construction-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions Construction Phase
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation2 41.83 18.29 9.83 5.44
Grading2 41.67 28.08 5.48 2.93
Building Construction (Year 2023) 14.77 17.29 1.04 0.75 Combined Building Construction (Year 2027), Paving and
Architectural Coatings 22.56 33.46 1.40 1.04
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 41.83 33.46 9.83 5.44 SCAQMD Local Construction Thresholds3 325 1,677 11 7
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
1 The Pollutant Emissions include 100% of the Onsite emissions (off-road equipment and fugitive dust) and 1/8 of the offsite emissions (on road trucks and worker vehicles), in order to account for the on-road emissions that occur within a 1/4 mile of the project site. 2 Site Preparation and Grading phases based on adherence to fugitive dust suppression requirements from SCAQMD Rule 403. 3 The nearest offsite sensitive receptor to the project site is a single-family home located as near as 12 feet (3.7 meters) west of the project site. According to SCAQMD methodology, all receptors closer than 25 meters are based on the 25-meter threshold.

Calculated from SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look‐up Tables for two and five acres in Air Monitoring Area 28, Hemet/San Jacinto Valley.

Source: Vista Environmental, Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis; September 14, 2023.

The data provided in Table 4.3-8 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the local emissions thresholds during either site preparation, grading, or the combined building construction, paving, and architectural coatings phases. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
The on-going operation of the proposed project would result in a long-term increase in air quality emissions. This increase would be due to emissions from the project-generated vehicle trips, emissions

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-18 Air Quality
from energy usage, onsite area source emissions, and off-road equipment created from the on-going use of the proposed project. The following section provides an analysis of potential long-term air quality impacts due to regional air quality and local air quality impacts with the on-going operations of the proposed project.

Operations-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Analysis The operations-related regional criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through use of the CalEEMod model. The worst-case summer or winter VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 daily emissions created from the proposed project’s long-term operations have been calculated and are summarized in Table 4.3-9, Operational Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions.

Table 4.3-9
Operational Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources1 23.37 0.40 34.95 <0.01 0.19 0.19
Energy Usage2 0.35 3.03 1.29 0.02 0.24 0.24
Mobile Sources3 11.16 14.62 109.10 0.26 29.39 7.97
Total Emissions 34.89 18.05 145.34 0.28 29.82 8.40
SCAQMD Operational Thresholds 55.00 55.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:
1 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 2 Energy usage consists of emissions from natural gas usage. 3 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust.

Source: Vista Environmental, Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis; September 14, 2023.

The data provided in Table 4.3-9 shows that none of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the regional emissions thresholds. Comparing the results of the GP’s operational impacts shown in Table

4.3-6 to the project’s operational impacts shown in Table 4.3-9, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 (also referred to as “Friant Ranch”), the California Supreme Court held that when an EIR concluded that when a project would have significant impacts to air quality, an EIR should “make a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” In order to determine compliance with this case, the Court developed a multi-part test that includes the following:
1) The air quality discussion shall describe the specific health risks created from each criteria pollutant, including diesel particulate matter.

This analysis details the specific health risks created from each criteria pollutant above in Table 4.3-1.

As such, this analysis meets the Part 1 requirements of the Friant Ranch Case. 2) The analysis shall identify the magnitude of the health risks created from the project. The ruling details how to identify the magnitude of the health risks. Specifically, on page 24 of the ruling

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-19 Air Quality
it states “The Court of Appeal identified several ways in which the EIR could have framed the analysis so as to adequately inform the public and decision makers of possible adverse health effects. The County could have, for example, identified the project’s impact on the days of nonattainment per year.”
The Friant Ranch Case found that an EIR’s air quality analysis must meaningfully connect the identified air quality impacts to the human health consequences of those impacts, or meaningfully explain why that analysis cannot be provided. As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD in the Friant Ranch case (https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/9-s219783-ac-south-coast-air-quality-mgt-dist041315.pdf) (Brief), SCAQMD has among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capability of any of the air districts in the State, and thus it is uniquely situated to express an opinion on how lead agencies should correlate air quality impacts with specific health outcomes. The SCAQMD briefly explains that it may be infeasible to quantify health risks caused by projects similar to the proposed project, due to many factors. It is necessary to have data regarding the sources and types of air toxic contaminants, location of emission points, velocity of emissions, the meteorology and topography of the area, and the location of receptors (worker and residence). The Brief states that it may not be feasible to perform a health risk assessment for airborne toxics that will be emitted by a generic industrial building that was built on “speculation” (i.e., without knowing the future tenant(s)). Even where a health risk assessment can be prepared, however, the resulting maximum health risk value is only a calculation of risk, it does not necessarily mean anyone will contract cancer because of the project. The Brief also cites the author of the CARB methodology, which reported that a PM2.5 methodology is not suited for small projects and may yield unreliable results.

Similarly, SCAQMD staff does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify ozone-related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects, due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. The Brief concludes, with respect to the Friant Ranch EIR, that although it may have been technically possible to plug the data into a methodology, the results would not have been reliable or meaningful.

On the other hand, for extremely large regional projects (unlike the proposed project), the SCAQMD states that it has been able to correlate potential health outcomes for very large emissions sources as part of their rulemaking activity. Specifically, 6,620 pounds per day of NOX and 89,180 pounds per day of VOC were expected to result in approximately 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences due to ozone. As shown previously in Table 4.3-7, project-related construction activities would generate a maximum of 69.02 pounds per day of VOC and 33.34 pounds per day of NOX and as shown above in Table 4.3-9, operation of the proposed project would generate 7.70 pounds per day of VOC and 3.21 pounds per day of NOX. The proposed project would not generate anywhere near the levels of 6,620 pounds per day of NOX or 89,190 pounds per day of VOC emissions. Therefore, the proposed project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin-wide level.

Notwithstanding, this analysis does evaluate the proposed project’s localized impact on air quality for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 by comparing the proposed project’s onsite emissions to the SCAQMD’s applicable LST thresholds. As evaluated in this analysis, the proposed project would not result in emissions that exceeded the SCAQMD’s LSTs. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Comparing the results of the GP’s construction impacts (Table

4.3-5) to the project’s (Table 4.3-7) and the GPs operational impacts (Table 4.3-6) to the project’s

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-20 Air Quality
(Table 4.3-9), the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Operations-Related Local Air Quality Impacts
Project-related air emissions may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. The proposed project has been analyzed for the potential local CO emission impacts from the project-generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from onsite operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions and local impacts from onsite operations.

Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project-Generated Vehicular Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the State and Federal CO standards of 20 ppm over one (1) hour or 9 ppm over eight (8) hours.

At the time of the 1993 Handbook, the Air Basin was designated nonattainment under the CAAQS and NAAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Air Basin and in the State have steadily declined. In 2007, the Air Basin was designated in attainment for CO under both the CAAQS and NAAQS. SCAQMD conducted a CO hot spot analysis for attainment at the busiest intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon periods and did not predict a violation of CO standards.
3 Since the nearby intersections to the proposed project are much smaller with less traffic than what was analyzed by the SCAQMD, no local CO Hotspots are anticipated to be created from the proposed project and no CO Hotspot modeling was performed. As identified in Table 4.3-6, the GPEIR identified CO as a potentially significant and unavoidable impact whereas the project’s operational emissions shown in Table 4.3-9 would not be significant. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations The GPEIR did not provide a quantitative analysis of localized operational impacts because the exact nature and location of future developments are unknown and quantification of potential localized operational risk would be speculative. However, as operation of future developments would occur within close proximity to sensitive receptors, there would be potential for localized emissions to exceed regulatory levels. Therefore, The GPEIR determined localized operational emissions associated 3 The four intersections analyzed by the SCAQMD were: Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway; Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard. The busiest intersection evaluated (Wilshire and Veteran) had a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day with LOS E in the morning and LOS F in the evening peak hour.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-21 Air Quality
with GP implementation would be potentially significant. A project-specific quantitative analysis is provided below.

Project-related air emissions from onsite sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and onsite usage of natural gas appliances may have the potential to create emissions areas that exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the SCAB.

The local air quality emissions from onsite operations were analyzed using the SCAQMD’s Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables and the methodology described in LST Methodology. The Look-up Tables were developed by the SCAQMD to readily determine if the daily emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 from the proposed project could result in a significant impact to the local air quality. Table 4.3-10, Operations-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions, shows the onsite emissions from the CalEEMod model that includes area sources, energy usage, onsite off-road equipment, and vehicles operating in the immediate vicinity of the project site and the calculated emissions thresholds.

Table 4.3-10
Operations‐Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Onsite Emission Source
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources 0.23 24.10 0.01 0.01
Energy Usage 3.81 1.62 0.31 0.31
Mobile Sources 0.35 3.10 0.71 0.18
Total Emissions 4.39 28.82 1.03 0.50
SCAQMD Local Operational Thresholds 325 1,677 3 2
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Source: Vista Environmental, Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis; September 14, 2023.

The data provided in Table 4.3-10 shows that the on-going operations of the proposed project would not exceed the local NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. Therefore, the on-going operations of the proposed project would not create a peculiar operations-related impact to local air quality due to onsite emissions. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Land Use Policies 1.1. Resource Management Goals RM-4 and RM-5. Resource Management Policies 4.1, 4.2, 4.4 through 4.8, 4.12,

5.1 through 5.4, and 5.9. Resource Management Actions 4b, 4c, 4d, 4n, and 4o. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.3- 38 through 5.3-41. The GPEIR determined that, with respect to local air quality emissions, toxic air contaminant emissions, and health impacts, future development under the GP would be required to comply with AQMP, SIP, CARB, SCAQMD regulations, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and the proposed GP policies and actions. Implementation of the GP policies and actions would mitigate and

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-22 Air Quality
reduce such emissions. However, the exact location, type, nature, and size of future projects that may expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations cannot be calculated. Therefore, the GPEIR did not provide a quantitative analysis of localized operational impacts because it would be speculative.

As such, there is no way to determine the extent to which these regulations would be, or need to be, implemented, and it is impossible to determine if potential impacts would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds. Additionally, there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond the GP’s policies and actions. Therefore, localized operational impacts, construction and operational health and toxic air impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Implementation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The local concentrations of criteria pollutant emissions produced in the nearby vicinity of the proposed project, which could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations have been calculated for both construction and operations, which are discussed separately below. The discussion below also includes an analysis of the potential impacts from local criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are single‐family homes located as near as 15 feet to the northeast of the project site.

CONSTRUCTION-RELATED SENSITIVE RECEPTOR IMPACTS
Construction activities could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of localized criteria pollutant concentrations and toxic air contaminant emissions created from onsite construction equipment, which are described below.

Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Construction
Project construction activities would temporarily increase criteria pollutant emissions in the local vicinity, which could potentially impact air quality in surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, the project’s emissions were modeled and compared to the applicable localized SCAQMD thresholds as shown in Table 4.3-8, Construction-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions. The local air quality impacts from construction of the proposed project have been analyzed and found that the construction of the proposed project would not exceed the local NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. As the GPEIR found that GP impacts could result in significant impacts, project construction would not create a peculiar construction-related impact to local air quality.

Toxic Air Contaminants Impacts from Construction
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, any project that has the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants in excess of the following thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact:
 If the Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk is 10 in one (1) million or greater; or  Toxic air contaminants from the proposed project would result in a Hazard Index increase of 1 or greater.

In order to determine if the proposed project may have a significant impact related to toxic air contaminants (TACs), the Health Risk Assessment Guidance for analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis, (Diesel Analysis) prepared by SCAQMD, August 2003, recommends that if the proposed project is anticipated to create TACs through stationary sources or regular operations of diesel trucks on the project site, then the proximity of the nearest

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-23 Air Quality
receptors to the source of the TAC and the toxicity of the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) should be analyzed through a comprehensive facility-wide health risk assessment (HRA).

The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed project. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of “individual cancer risk.” “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. It should be noted that the most current cancer risk assessment methodology recommends analyzing a 30-year exposure period for the nearby sensitive receptors (OEHHA, 2015).

Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment, the varying distances that construction equipment would operate to the nearby sensitive receptors, and the short-term construction schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 30 or 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. In addition, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off-road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits the idling of equipment to no more than five (5) minutes, requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual reports to CARB of their fleet’s usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet. Currently, no commercial operation in California may add any equipment to their fleet that has a Tier 0, Tier 1, or Tier 2 engine. Commercial fleets may continue to use their existing Tier 0, 1, and 2 equipment if they can demonstrate that the average emissions from their entire fleet emissions meet the NOX emissions targets. In addition to the purchase restrictions, equipment operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more stringent each year between years 2014 and 2023. Therefore, due to the limitations in off-road construction equipment DPM emissions from implementation of Section 2449, a less than significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed project. As such, construction of the proposed project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As the GPEIR found that GP impacts could result in significant impacts, the project has been determined not to create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

OPERATIONS-RELATED SENSITIVE RECEPTOR IMPACTS
The on-going operations of the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of local CO emission impacts from the project-generated vehicular trips and from the potential local air quality impacts from onsite operations. The following analyzes the vehicular CO emissions.

Local CO Hotspot Impacts from Project-Generated Vehicle Trips CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential impacts to sensitive receptors. The analysis provided above shows that no local CO Hotspots are anticipated to be created at any nearby intersections from the vehicle traffic generated by the proposed project. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant exposure of offsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-24 Air Quality
Local Criteria Pollutant Impacts from Onsite Operations The local air quality impacts from the operation of the proposed project would occur from onsite sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, and onsite usage of natural gas appliances. The analysis provided above found that the operation of the proposed project would not exceed the local NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 thresholds of significance. As the GPEIR found that GP impacts could result in significant impacts, the on-going operations of the proposed project would not create a peculiar operations-related impact to local air quality due to onsite emissions.

Operations-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts
Particulate matter (PM) from diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in most areas and according to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition, prepared by CARB, about 80% of the outdoor TAC cancer risk is from diesel exhaust. Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde have been listed as carcinogens by State Proposition 65 and the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program. Due to the nominal number of diesel truck trips that are anticipated to be generated by the on-going operation of the proposed residential project, no peculiar TAC impact would occur during the on-going operations of the proposed project.

Therefore, project operations would not result in the peculiar exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As discussed previously, the GPEIR did not provide a quantitative analysis of potential localized impacts to avoid speculation in the absence of specific details about future development in the GP area. Thus, the GPEIR determined impacts would be potentially significant. Nonetheless, as shown in Table 4.3-10, the project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Land Use Policies 1.1. Resource Management Goals RM-4 and RM-5. Resource Management Policies 4.1, 4.2, 4.4 through 4.8, 4.12,

5.1 through 5.4, and 5.9. Resource Management Actions 4b, 4c, 4d, 4n, and 4o. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.3- 41 through 5.3-42. The GPEIR determined that, construction of future development would not be expected to generate nuisance odors at nearby air quality sensitive receptors; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. The GPEIR also determined that compliance with the City’s Development Code and applicable GP policies 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. Consequently, GP implementation would not create operational-related objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people within the City. Impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Individual responses to odors are highly variable and can result in a variety of effects. Generally, the impact of an odor results from a variety of factors such as frequency, duration, offensiveness, location, and sensory perception. The frequency is a measure of how often an individual is exposed to an odor in the ambient environment. The intensity

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-25 Air Quality
refers to an individual’s or group’s perception of the odor strength or concentration. The duration of an odor refers to the elapsed time over which an odor is experienced. The offensiveness of the odor is the subjective rating of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of an odor. The location accounts for the type of area in which a potentially affected person lives, works, or visits; the type of activity in which he or she is engaged; and the sensitivity of the impacted receptor.

Sensory perception has four (4) major components: detectability, intensity, character, and hedonic tone. The detection (or threshold) of an odor is based on a panel of responses to the odor. There are two (2) types of thresholds: the odor detection threshold and the recognition threshold. The detection threshold is the lowest concentration of an odor that will elicit a response in a percentage of the people that live and work in the immediate vicinity of the project site and is typically presented as the mean (or 50% of the population). The recognition threshold is the minimum concentration that is recognized as having a characteristic odor quality, this is typically represented by recognition by 50% of the population. The intensity refers to the perceived strength of the odor. The odor character is what the substance smells like. The hedonic tone is a judgment of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the odor. The hedonic tone varies in subjective experience, frequency, odor character, odor intensity, and duration. Potential odor impacts have been analyzed separately for construction and operations below.

CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ODOR IMPACTS
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of coatings such as asphalt pavement, paints, and solvents and from emissions from diesel equipment. Standard construction requirements that limit the time of day when construction may occur as well as SCAQMD Rule 1108 that limits VOC content in asphalt and Rule 1113 that limits the VOC content in paints and solvents would minimize odor impacts from construction. As such, the objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site’s boundaries. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it proposes construction of land uses consistent with those analyzed in the GPEIR. The project would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

OPERATIONS-RELATED ODOR IMPACTS
The proposed project would consist of a residential development. Potential sources that may emit odors during the on-going operations of the proposed project would primarily occur from the trash storage areas. Pursuant to City regulations, permanent trash enclosures that protect trash bins from rain as well as limit air circulation would be required for the trash storage areas. Due to the distance of the nearest receptors from the project site and through compliance with SCAQMD’s Rule 402 and City trash storage regulations, no significant impact related to odors would occur during the on-going operations of the proposed project. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it proposes the operation of land uses consistent with those analyzed in the GPEIR. Therefore, no peculiar odor impact would occur. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: None are required.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.3-26 Air Quality
This page was intentionally left blank.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-1 Biological Resources

4.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:

Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project
or Project
Site
Significant
Impact due
to New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the GPEIR
No 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 U.S. 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?

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed impacts to biological resources on pages 5.4-24 through 5.4.43. The GPEIR determined future development associated with the GP would increase urbanization throughout the City and have the potential to result in direct or indirect impacts to candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species. The implementation of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for future implementing projects consistent with the GP 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 the 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 GP. However, future

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-2 Biological Resources
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 GP area.

Nonetheless, the GPEIR ultimately determined that although numerous regulations including implementation of the MSHCP and GP 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 GPEIR determined development under the GP 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 GP 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 GPEIR ultimately determined that although numerous regulations including implementation of the MSHCP and GP 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 GPEIR determined that potential impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities would be considered significant and unavoidable.

The GPEIR determined subsequent development under the GP 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 GP 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 GPEIR determined that compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, and implementation of GP policies and actions, would reduce potential impacts to wetlands to a less than significant level.

The GPEIR also determined that future development under the GP 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 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 Development Code 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

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-3 Biological Resources
(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, GP Action RM-1j requires vegetation and tree removal, that would occur during the bird nesting season, 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 GPEIR determined that through the protections afforded by the MSHCP, the MBTA, and GP goals, policies, and actions, future development under the GP 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 GPEIR determined future development under the GP 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 GP 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 Municipal Code and GP goals, policies, and actions. Therefore, the GPEIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

PROJECT ANALYSIS
The following analysis is based on a Biological Technical Report and MSHCP Consistency Analysis prepared by VCS Environmental in November 2024. The report is presented in its entirety in Appendix B.

Existing Setting
The project site is located within the San Jacinto Valley, approximately 1.3 miles southwest of the San Jacinto River and adjacent to the San Jacinto Reservoir. The project site is currently vacant/agricultural, and the property is surrounded by a residential subdivision and agricultural vacant land to the north, agricultural/vacant land to the east, the San Jacinto Reservoir to the south, and agricultural/vacant land to the west.

The project site supports four (4) vegetation community/land cover types including agricultural crops; disturbed/developed; herbaceous non-native forbs, and grasses; and tamarisk thickets (refer to Figure

4.4-1, Vegetation/Land Cover). Most of the site is maintained as part of weed/fire abatement or as agricultural.

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Overall, most of the vegetation within the project site is characterized by maintained open fields comprised of disturbed annual grassland cover vegetated with a variety of non-native and early successional weedy plant species or as agricultural. The site conditions likely change frequently between being disced and covered with non-native vegetation forbs and being actively used for agriculture. Due to the frequent changes in site conditions, the impact acreages for agricultural crops and herbaceous non-native forbs and grasses were not updated between the 2021/2022 surveys and

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-4 Biological Resources
the 2024 follow up survey (neither vegetation community is biologically sensitive). Table 4.4-1, Vegetation Communities, shows the vegetation/land cover mapping and acreages of the project site.

Table 4.4-1
Vegetation Communities
Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type Project Site
(acres)
Agricultural Crops 1 4.30
Disturbed/Developed 2.63
Herbaceous Non-Native Forbs and Grasses 1 89.11
Tamarisk Thickets 0.31
Total2 96.35
Notes:
1 During a July 2024 follow up survey, the majority of the site consisted of agricultural crops and a smaller portion of the site consisted of herbaceous non-native forbs and grasses. However, this does not affect the significance of impacts, and acreages were not changed. 2 Total acreage comes to 96.35 rather than 96 due to limited offsite street front improvements along Lyon Avenue.

Source: VCS Environmental, Biological Technical Report and MSHCP Consistency Analysis; November 2024.

Agricultural Crops
Approximately 4.30 acres was agricultural crop land cover comprised of cultivated alfalfa during the 2021 and 2022 surveys. During a July 2024 follow up survey, it is comprised of cultivated watermelon and extends across the majority of the project site that was previously mapped as herbaceous nonnative forbs and grasses. The reported acreages reflect the 2021/2022 survey results; however, this does not affect the determinations or significance of impacts since both land cover types are not biologically sensitive.

Disturbed/Developed
Approximately 2.63 acres of the land is characterized as disturbed/developed comprised of dirt access road onsite containing little to no vegetative cover and developed roadway.

Herbaceous Non-Native Forbs and Grasses
Approximately 89.11 acres of land is characterized with herbaceous non-native forbs and grasses in 2021/2022. During the 2024 follow up survey, areas with this land cover were focused along the dirt road that runs along the northeastern boundary and in the northernmost corner of the Project Footprint. The reported acreages reflect the 2021/2022 survey results; however, this does not affect the determinations or significance of impacts since both land cover types are not biologically sensitive.

Tamarisk Thickets
Approximately 0.31 acres of thickets were mapped within the northern corner of the project site during the 2021 and 2022 general biological surveys. During the 2024 survey, five tamarisk trees were observed along with one black willow tree.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project Footprint (96.35 ac)
Project Site (95.37 ac)
ROW Addition (0.92 ac)
Vegetation / Land Cover Type
Herbaceous Non-Native Forbs and Grasses
(89.11 ac)
Agricultural Crops (4.30 ac)
Disturbed / Developed (2.63 ac)
Tamarisk Thickets (0.31 ac)
Source: ESRI and BAWCE; June 2022.

MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 4.4-1
Vegeta on/Land Cover

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-6 Biological Resources
Special Status Vegetation Communities
The project site does not support any sensitive vegetation communities. Sensitive vegetation communities including Gooding’s Willow Red Willow Riparian Woodland and Forest vegetation community are located offsite and adjacent to the project and would not be impacted by the project construction activities.

SENSITIVE PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES
A database search of special status plant species and wildlife species listed in the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online survey of rare plants and the CNDDB was conducted to determine the potential for special status plant and wildlife species to be present on the project site. A listing of special status plant and wildlife species that have a moderate or higher potential to occur on the project site is shown in Table 4.4-2, Special Status Species, and Figures 4.4-2a and 4.4-2b, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Occurrences. A complete listing of all special status species that have some potential to occur on the project site is presented in Appendix B, Biological Technical Report.

Table 4.4-2
Special Status Species
Scientific
Name
Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within the
Project Site
Birds
Ammodramus
savannarum
Grasshopper
Sparrow
SSC, MSHCP:

Group 2 and
Table 9-3
Breeds in open grasslands, prairies,
hayfields, and pastures, typically with some
bare ground. Grasshopper Sparrows usually
avoid breeding in grasslands with extensive
shrub cover but are a bit more tolerant of
shrubs in migration and during the winter.

Nests are domed with grasses, typically well
concealed in depressions at the base of grass
clumps. Sensitive to edge effects and
requires relatively large blocks of contiguous
habitat. Valley and foothill (native)
grasslands are the preferred habitat
although non-native grasslands are used by
the species as well.

Moderate. Project site
includes moderately
suitable breeding and
foraging habitat.

Athene
cunicularia
Burrowing
Owl

SSC, BCC,
BLMS, MSHCP:

Group 3
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands,
deserts and scrublands characterized by lowgrowing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most
notably, the California ground squirrel.

Moderate. Project site
includes suitable
burrows but lacks
perches.

Buteo regalis Ferruginous
Hawk

WL, BCC,
MSHCP:

Group 1
Live in the open spaces of the West, in
grasslands, prairie, sagebrush steppe,
scrubland, and pinyon-juniper woodland
edges. Present in southern California in the
winter.

Moderate. Project site
offers suitable
foraging habitat but
lacks suitable nesting
habitat for the
species.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-7 Biological Resources
Scientific
Name
Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within the
Project Site
Circus
hudsonius
Northern
Harrier
SCC, MSHCP:

Group 3
Wide-open habitats ranging from Arctic
tundra to prairie grasslands to fields and
marshes. Their nests are concealed on the
ground in grasses or wetland vegetation.

Observed (flyover).

Suitable foraging
habitat present, but
site lacks suitable
nesting habitat.

Eremophila
alpestris actia
California
horned lark
WL, MSHCP:

Group 2
The California horned lark is a common to
abundant resident in a variety of open
habitats, usually where trees and large
shrubs are absent. In the Midwest, the
species has been characterized as the most
abundant species in row-crop fields. Rangewide, California horned larks breed in level or gently sloping shortgrass prairie, montane
meadows, “bald” hills, open coastal plains,
fallow grain fields, and alkali flats.

Observed within
project site. Suitable
foraging and nesting
habitat present.

Lanius
ludovicianus
Loggerhead
Shrike

SSC, BCC,
MSCHP:

Group 2
The species is known to forage over open
ground within areas of short vegetation,
pastures with fence rows, old orchards,
mowed roadsides, cemeteries, golf courses,
riparian areas, open woodland, agricultural
fields, desert washes, desert scrub,
grassland, broken chaparral, and beach with
scattered shrubs. Nest is placed in a dense
(and often thorny) tree or shrub, usually 5-
30 feet above the ground, occasionally
higher, in a spot well hidden by foliage.

Moderate. Project site
offers suitable
foraging habitat but
lacks suitable nesting
habitat for the
species.

Melospiza
lincolnii
Lincoln’s
Sparrow
MSHCP;
Group 1 and
Table 9-3
Willow and alder thickets, muskeg, brushy
bogs. In winter, thickets, weeds, bushes.

Breeds in northern and mountainous areas
in dense low vegetation near water, such as
streamside willow groves, bushy edges of
bogs, brushy clearings in wet coniferous
forest. Winters in dense thickets, overgrown
fields.

Moderate. Species
may occur within the
project site during
non-breeding season,
but the project site
lacks suitable breeding
habitat.

Setophaga
petechia
(previously
Dendroica
petechia)
Yellow
Warbler

SSC, BCC
MSHCP Group
2 Found in thickets and other disturbed or
regrowing habitats, particularly along
streams and wetlands. Nests in the vertical
fork of a bush or small tree such as willow.

Observed within
adjacent (offsite)
willow habitat. Low
potential to occur
within project site due
to lack of suitable
nesting and foraging
habitat.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-8 Biological Resources
Scientific
Name
Common
Name Status General Habitat Description
Potential for
Occurrence within the
Project Site
Vireo bellii
pusillus
Least Bell’s
Vireo

FE, SE,
MSHCP:

Group 2
Summer resident of southern California in
low riparian, in vicinity of water or in dry river
bottoms; below 2,000 feet. Nests placed
along margins of bushes or on twigs
projecting into pathways, usually willow,
baccharis, or mesquite.

Species heard calling
within offsite willow
habitat. Low potential
to occur within project
site due to lack of
suitable nesting and
foraging habitat.

Mammals
Lasiurus
xanthinus
Western
Yellow Bat

SSC, WBWG
(H)
Year-round residents of southern California,
found below 2,000 feet in or near foothill or
desert riparian habitats. Roosts in trees,
including palm trees, in and near palm oases
and riparian habitats.

Moderate. Project
impact footprint lacks
suitable roosting
habitat, but the willow
canopy overhanging
onto the project site
could support roosting
for this species. The
species could forage
onsite. There is one
(1) recorded
occurrence within 2
miles of the site from
1988.

Source: VCS Environmental, Biological Technical Report and MSHCP Consistency Analysis; November 2024.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project Footprint
2-mile Buffer
CNDDB Occurences
Coulter's goldfields
Davidson's saltscale
Mojave tarplant
Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest
chaparral sand-verbena
salt spring checkerbloom
smooth tarplant
Source: ESRI, BAWCE, and CDFW; June 2022.

MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 4.4-2a
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Occurrences – Plant

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Project Footprint
2-mile Buffer
Critical Habitat
San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat
CNDDB Occurences
American badger
California glossy snake
Los Angeles pocket
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
San Diego desert woodrat
Southern California legless lizard
Stephens' kangaroo rat
burrowing owl
coast horned lizard
ferruginous hawk
least Bell's vireo
loggerhead shrike
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
orange-throated whiptail
red-diamond rattlesnake
tricolored blackbird
western spadefoot
western yellow bat
western yellow-billed cuckoo
white-faced ibis
yellow warbler
yellow-headed blackbird
Source: ESRI, BAWCE, and CDFW; June 2022.

MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 4.4-2b
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Occurrences – Wildlife

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-11 Biological Resources

WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization creates isolated “islands” of wildlife habitat. Corridors effectively act as links between different populations of a species. An increase in a population’s genetic variability is generally associated with an increase in a population’s health.

Corridors mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation by:
 Allowing wildlife to move between remaining habitats, which allows depleted populations to be replenished and promotes genetic diversity;
 Providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk that catastrophic events (such as fires or disease) will result in population or local species extinction; and
 Serving as travel routes for individual wildlife species as they move within their home ranges in search of food, water, mates, and other needs.

Wildlife movement activities usually fall into one (1) of three (3) movement categories:
 Dispersal (e.g., juvenile animals from natal areas, individuals extending range distributions);  Seasonal migration; and
 Movements related to home range activities (foraging for food or water, defending territories, searching for mates, breeding areas, or cover).

The project site is located adjacent to both residential development and open space parcels. The site itself is comprised of fields dominated by non-native grasses and forbs. Because the site has open fields that are adjacent to residential land uses, the project site plays a minor role in local wildlife dispersal and foraging. Common wildlife species including coyotes, skunks, opossums, and raccoons may travel through the site and neighboring developed or open areas, but the site does not provide connectivity between large areas of open space on a local or regional scale. The site is not within a significant regional wildlife movement corridor and is not considered to play a significant role in regional wildlife movement.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (WR-MSHCP) is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on conservation of species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County. The overall goal of this plan is to maintain biological and ecological diversity within a rapidly urbanizing region. The MSHCP allows Riverside and its Cities to better control local land-use decisions and maintain a strong economic climate in the region while addressing the requirements of the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts. The MSHCP Plan Area encompasses approximately 1.26 million acres (1,966 square miles); it includes all unincorporated Riverside County land west of the crest of the San Jacinto Mountains to the Orange County line, as well as the jurisdictional areas of the Cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Norco, Corona, Riverside, Moreno Valley, Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Perris, Hemet, and San Jacinto.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-12 Biological Resources
The project is located within the San Jacinto Valley Area Plan of the MSHCP within the San Jacinto Habitat Management Unit. The project site is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Cell or Cell Group.

As such, the project is not subject to the Joint Project Review (JPR) or Habitat Acquisition and Negotiation (HANS) processes.

The Western Riverside MSHCP Volume 1, Appendix C, outlines standard BMPs which are intended in part to reduce impacts to plant communities, special status plant and wildlife species, and jurisdictional waters. As the project is located within the MSHCP boundary, the project will be required to comply with the BMPs found in Appendix C of the MSHCP, as applicable. The following are recommended, which are based on the standard MSHCP BMPs:

1. A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished.

2. Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements.

3. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible.

4. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within a stream channel or on its banks.

5. The qualified project biologist shall monitor vegetation clearing to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project area.

6. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre-existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species.

7. Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible.

8. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s).

9. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project site and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screens. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-13 Biological Resources
activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas.

10. The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions including these BMPs.

PROJECT IMPACTS
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?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.4- 24 through 5.4-28. The GPEIR concluded that, although numerous regulations including implementation of the MSHCP and General Plan Update 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 General Plan includes the following uniformly applied development policies and standardsthat are applicable to the project: Action RM-1d, Action RM-1i, and Action RM-1j.

SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
No special status plant species were found on the project site and are not anticipated to occur. Based on the levels of disturbance, low habitat quality and the lack of detection of any special status plants during the biological and focus plant surveys, the project is not expected to impact any special status plant species. As such no direct impacts are expected to occur as a result of project implementation.

SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Sensitive wildlife species observed within the project site and those with low-moderate or moderate potential to occur are listed below.

Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl is covered by special survey requirements of the MSHCP. The burrowing owl also receives protection under CDFW Fish and Game Code (FGC), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and was recently classified as a candidate endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act, which may require obtaining an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) if found within the project site.

Burrowing owl has moderate potential to occur within the project site. The site has provided suitable grassland habitat for foraging when not being actively farmed but lacks suitable perches for owls.

Focused surveys for burrowing owls were conducted and shown in Table 4.4-3, Survey Data for BUOW Focused Surveys, the four (4) focused surveys conducted did not detect any burrowing owls. An additional follow up burrowing owl survey was conducted on July 26, 2024 by VCS biologists to confirm no burrowing owl occupation of the site. The surveys were conducted in compliance with MSHCP protocol’s suggested time frame and weather conditions that were conducive for observing burrowing owls outside of their burrows.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-14 Biological Resources
Although no suitable size burrows were observed within the project site, the project site does contain suitable habitat and there could be potential that the species could occur during periods when active agriculture is not occurring. Therefore, a pre-construction survey to determine presence/absence of the species is recommended, consistent with the General Plan Action RM-1j. Consistent with the General Plan Action RM-1d, Action RM-1i, and Action RM-1j, Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards BIO-1a and BIO-1b are required, which includes conducting a burrowing owl survey and implementing protective measures, as needed.

Table 4.4-3
Survey Data for BUOW Focused Surveys
Survey
No. Survey Date Time
Temperature
High and Low
(Fahrenheit)
Conditions Personnel
Burrowing
Owl
Detected
1 March 10, 2022 0600-1045 49-59
Mostly
cloudy, 0-3
mph wind

MBW, SV,
NM No
2 March 23, 2022 0810-1030 60-74
Clear skies,
sunny 3-7
mph wind

MBW, SV,
NM No
3 April 6, 2022
0810-1030
(project site)
1030-1115
(500’ buffer)
61-83
Clear skies,
sunny, no
wind

MBW, SV,
NM No
4 April 13, 2022
0735-1020
(project site)
1020-1120
(500’ buffer)
44-60
Clear skies,
sunny, no
wind

MBW, SV,
NM No
5 July 26, 2024 0500 – 710 72 – 75 Clear skies,
1mph wind SV, VT, JM No
Personnel Biologist: MBW – Molly Burdick-Whipp, SV – Sierra Valladares, NM – Nathalie Munoz, VT: Vanessa Tucker, JM: Joel Martinez.

Source: VCS Environmental, Biological Technical Report and MSHCP Consistency Analysis; November 2024.

Ferruginous Hawk
There is a moderate potential for the ferruginous hawk to occur within the project site. Ferruginous hawks are open-country birds that breed in grasslands, sagebrush country, saltbush greasewood shrublands, and edges of pinyon-juniper forests at low to moderate elevations. Their breeding habitat includes features such as cliffs, outcrops, and tree groves for nesting. West of the Rockies, ferruginous hawks spend the winter in grasslands or deserts with abundant rabbits, pocket gophers, or prairie dogs. This species is present in southern California in the winter. The project site does not provide suitable habitat for breeding but does provide habitat for foraging when not under active agriculture.

This species was not observed during the October 2021 or April 2022 general biological surveys. Based on lack of suitable nesting habitat, no potential impacts to nesting species would occur.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-15 Biological Resources
Implementation of the project would remove foraging habitat from the project site. Foraging individuals are expected to move to adjacent habitats during construction activities, and there would be no direct mortality on these species. The loss of 96 acres of foraging habitat would not decrease populations below self-sustaining levels given the availability of habitat remaining in the region.

Consistent with General Plan Action RM-1j, Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard BIO-1a is required.

Grasshopper Sparrow
There is a moderate potential for the grasshopper sparrow to occur within the project site. The grasshopper sparrow is a stubby-tailed and bull-necked songbird found in grasslands, prairies, hayfields, and open pastures with little to no scrub cover and often with some bare ground. The project site does provide suitable habitat for foraging; however, the site lacks suitable nesting habitat for the species. This species was not observed during the October 2021 or April 2022 general biological surveys. Implementation of the project would remove foraging habitat from the project site. Foraging individuals are expected to move to adjacent habitats during construction activities, and there would be no direct mortality on these species. The loss of 96 acres of foraging habitat would not decrease populations below self-sustaining levels given the availability of habitat remaining in the region. To avoid direct impacts and indirect construction noise impacts to nesting birds, Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard BIO-1a is required, consistent with the General Plan Action RM-1j.

Least Bell’s Vireo
The least Bell’s vireo is a small, olive-gray, migratory songbird that primarily occupies riverine riparian habitats that typically feature dense cover within 1-2 meters of the ground and a dense, stratified canopy. This species was heard calling within offsite willow habitat west of the project site during the April 2022 general biological survey and during the July 26, 2024 survey. The project site lacks suitable nesting and foraging habitat for this species. Implementation of the project would not have any direct impact on the species; however, construction noise impacts generated by the project could indirectly impact the breeding patterns of the least Bell’s vireo located offsite during nesting season, which would result in a significant impact. To avoid indirect noise impacts to nesting birds, Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard BIO-1a is required, consistent with the General Plan Action RM-1j.

Lincoln’s Sparrow
There is a moderate potential for the Lincoln’s sparrow to occur within the project site during the nonbreeding season. The Lincoln’s sparrow occurs within the Western Riverside County area as a migrant and winter visitor throughout lowland areas and is common in overgrown fields and brush thickets and channels. The project site lacks suitable nesting habitat for the species. Therefore, there would be no potential direct impacts to nesting birds. Implementation of the project would remove foraging habitat from the project site. Foraging individuals are expected to move to adjacent habitats during construction activities, and there would be no direct mortality on these species. The loss of 96 acres of foraging habitat for these species would not decrease populations below self-sustaining levels given the availability of habitat remaining in the region. Consistent with General Plan Action RM-1j, Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard BIO-1a is required.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-16 Biological Resources
Loggerhead Shrike
There is a moderate potential for this species to occur within the project site as suitable foraging habitat and prey are available on the project site. The loggerhead shrike is a songbird with a raptor’s habits. A denizen of grasslands and other open habitats throughout much of North America, this masked black, white, and gray predator hunts from utility poles, fence posts and other conspicuous perches, preying on insects, birds, lizards, and small mammals. This species was not observed during the October 2021 or April 2022 general biological surveys. The project site lacks suitable nesting habitat for the species. Therefore, there would be no potential for direct impacts to nesting birds.

Implementation of the project would remove foraging habitat from the project site. Foraging individuals are expected to move to adjacent habitats during construction activities, and there would be no direct mortality on these species. The loss of 96 acres of foraging habitat for these species would not decrease populations below self-sustaining levels given the availability of habitat remaining in the region. Consistent with General Plan Action RM-1j, Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard BIO-1a is required.

Northern Harrier
This species was observed flying over the project site during the April 2022 biological survey. The project site offers suitable foraging habitat but lacks suitable nesting habitat for the species. These unusual raptors have a broad distribution across North America within wide-open habitats ranging from Arctic tundra to prairie grasslands to fields and marshes. Breeding Northern harriers are most common in large, undisturbed tracts of wetlands and grasslands with low, thick vegetation; their nests are concealed on the ground in grasses or wetland vegetation. The project site lacks suitable nesting habitat for the species. Therefore, there would be no potential for direct impacts to nesting birds.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
This species was not observed but the offsite willow habitat located adjacent to the project site could support nesting for this species. Southwestern willow flycatchers, as their name implies, occupy areas with willows or other shrubs near standing or running water. It breeds in relatively dense riparian tree and shrub communities associated with rivers, swamps, and other wetlands including lakes and reservoirs. Habitat patches must be at least 0.25 acres in size and at least 30 feet wide. The species is an insectivore and forages within and above dense riparian vegetation. The southwestern willow flycatcher is present in breeding territories by mid-May, including southern California. The nearest recorded occurrence in CNDDB is located 8 miles to the north. The project site does not contain suitable nesting habitat for the flycatcher. Therefore, no potential for direct impacts to nesting birds would occur. However, located offsite is suitable nesting habitat and there would potential that nesting flycatchers could occur during nesting season. Construction operation noise impacts associated with the project could have the potential to disrupt breeding patterns of the flycatcher which would be a significant impact. Consistent with General Plan Action RM-1j, Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard BIO-1a is required.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-17 Biological Resources
Western Yellow Bat
There is moderate potential for the western yellow bat to occur on the project site. The project site lacks suitable roosting habitat for the western yellow bat; however, the species could forage onsite.

The willow trees within adjacent (offsite) areas offer suitable roosting habitat. Implementation of the project would remove foraging habitat from the project site. The loss of 96 acres of foraging habitat for these species would not decrease populations below self-sustaining levels given the availability of habitat remaining in the region. Construction operation noise impacts associated with the project could have the potential to disrupt breeding patterns of the western yellow bat which would be a significant impact. Consistent with General Plan Action RM-1d and Action RM-1i, Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard BIO-2 is required.

Yellow Warbler
This species was observed within the offsite willow habitat located near the southwest corner of the site. This bright yellow warbler spends the breeding season in thickets and other disturbed or regrowing habitats, particularly along streams and wetlands. The species nests in the vertical fork of a bush or small tree such as willow. There is no suitable nesting or foraging habitat on the project site.

However, suitable nesting and foraging habitats are located offsite. Potential construction operations associated with the proposed project could result in indirect construction noise impacts that could disrupt breeding patterns and cause a significant impact. To avoid indirect noise impacts to nesting birds, Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard BIO-1a is required, consistent with the General Plan Action RM-1j.

POTENTIAL IMAPCTS TO CRITICAL HABITAT
The USFWS’s online service for information regarding Threatened and Endangered Species Final Critical Habitat designation within California was reviewed to determine if the project site occurs within any species designated Critical Habitat. The Critical Habitat for San Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) occurs approximately 1.2 miles north-northeast of the project site. The project site is not located within any USFWS-designated Critical Habitat and no impacts to critical habitat would occur.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The General Plan includes Action RM-1d, Action RM-1i, and Action RM-1j that are applicable to this project. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Resource Management Goal RM-1.

Resource Management Policies 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.6. Resource Management Actions 1c and 1d.

Consistent with Action RM-1d, Action RM-1i, and Action RM-1j, the following is required.

BIO-1a: Preconstruction Survey. To maintain compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513), prior to the start of ground disturbance or vegetation removal, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted to avoid impacts to avian species.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-18 Biological Resources
Removal of any trees, shrubs or any other potential nesting and foraging habitat for avian and/or sensitive avian species shall be conducted outside of the nesting season to the greatest extent practical. Alternatively, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted within three (3) days prior to the start of work if work is to occur during the nesting bird season (January 31 – September 15). The survey results shall be provided to the City’s Planning Department. The project applicant shall adhere to the following:

1. Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in:
identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/ establishing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization measures.

2. Pre-activity field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than three (3) days prior to the initiation of project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate.

If nesting birds are not found within the project site, site preparation and construction activities may begin during the nesting/breeding season. If nesting birds or active nests (including nesting raptors) are identified, then avoidance or minimization measures shall be undertaken in consultation with the City of San Jacinto (and California Department of Fish and Wildlife if the observed species has special status). Measures shall include immediate establishment of an avoidance buffer be implemented as determined by a qualified biologist and approved by the City of San Jacinto, based on their best professional judgment and experience. The buffer shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by accounting for topography, ambient conditions, species, nest location, and activity type. The buffer around the nest shall be delineated and flagged, and all work within these buffers shall be halted until a qualified biologist determines the nesting effort is finished (i.e., the juveniles are surviving independent from the nest or the nest has failed). The biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. If the biologist determines that such project activities may be causing an adverse reaction, the biologist shall adjust the buffer accordingly or implement alternative avoidance and minimization measures, such as redirecting or rescheduling construction or erecting sound barriers. The onsite biologist shall review and verify compliance with these nesting boundaries and shall verify the nesting effort has finished (i.e., the juveniles are surviving independent from the nest). All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is otherwise confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. Work can resume within the buffer area when no other active nests are found. If vegetation clearing is not initiated within 72 hours of a

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-19 Biological Resources
negative survey during the nesting season, the nesting survey must be repeated to confirm the absence of nesting birds. Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to City of San Jacinto Planning Division for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

BIO-1b: To avoid project-related impacts to burrowing owls potentially occurring on or in the vicinity of the project site, a preconstruction presence/absence survey for burrowing owl in accordance with the March 2006 Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities including vegetation clearing, grubbing, tree removal, or site watering. In addition, a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl shall be conducted within three (3) days prior to initiation of project activities and reported to the City of San Jacinto, and if an owl or owls are detected, reported to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). If no burrowing owls are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If ground-disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, another pre-construction survey shall again be necessary to minimize the possibility burrowing owl have colonized the site since it was last disturbed. If burrowing owls are found, the same coordination described in this measure shall be necessary.

If burrowing owl are determined present within 500 feet of the project site, then avoidance or minimization measures shall be undertaken in consultation with the City of San Jacinto, CDFW and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). CDFW shall be sent written notification within 48 hours of detection of burrowing owls. The qualified biologist and project applicant shall coordinate with the City, CDFW, and USFWS to develop a Burrowing Owl Plan, as described below, to be approved by the City, CDFW, and USFWS prior to commencing project activities. Additionally, the Project applicant may be required to obtain a Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit, if it is deemed appropriate by CDFW. The project applicant shall implement the 2081 Incidental Take Permit if required.

If applicable, the Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, relocation, monitoring, minimization, and/or mitigation actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites and details on proposed buffers if avoiding the burrowing owls or information on the adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat is available nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation and funding of artificial burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) and management activities for relocated owls shall also be included in the Burrowing Owl Plan. The City shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-20 Biological Resources
active relocation, or other appropriate mitigation measures as identified in the Burrowing Owl Plan.

BIO-2: To avoid impacts to special-status bat species and identify roosting habitat, a preconstruction bat survey shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist prior to initiation of project activities. The survey shall be conducted within a 100-foot buffer of areas containing suitable habitat (i.e., adjacent willow trees) during appropriate weather conditions per the bat biologist’s recommendations. If bats are identified, the qualified bat biologist shall identify the bats to the species level and evaluate the colony to determine its size and significance, and presence of a maternal colony. If any evidence of bat occupation is identified during the survey, the qualified bat biologist shall then provide additional measures to avoid impacts to roosting bats, and if the observed species has special status, as recommended by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

Measures provided shall be specific to the individual roost species present, and proposed construction activities, and shall include: a) postponement of project activities within a nowork buffer specified by the bat biologist to outside of the bat maternity season (typically, maternity season is April 1 through August 31) if a maternity colony is identified to be present and b) monitoring of project activities by a qualified bat biologist. Project activities that do not produce noise or vibrations substantially higher than ambient conditions may be conducted if a nonmaternal roosting colony is present at the qualified bat biologist’s discretion. If the qualified bat biologist determines that nonmaternal colony roosting bats are disturbed by construction activities, construction activities shall cease immediately and additional avoidance measures (e.g., installation of a noise shroud or sound curtain) shall be required before activities resume. If a maternity colony is present, tree removal and/or modification shall occur outside the bat maternity season (typically April 1 through August 31) in the fall (after flightless young have become volant as determined by the qualified bat biologist) and under the supervision of a qualified bat biologist. 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.4-28 through 5.4-31. The GPEIR concluded that, although numerous regulations including implementation of the MSHCP and General Plan 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 sitespecific level. Therefore, potential impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities would be considered significant and unavoidable.

The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project site consists of 96 acres

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-21 Biological Resources
zoned for Low Density Residential. The project does not contain any vegetation communities that are considered a sensitive habitat by local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.

Additionally, the project site does not fall within any USFWS-designated Critical Habitat. The proposed project will not impact any native habitats or any special status habitats.

The project is located within the San Jacinto Valley Area Plan of the MSHCP within the San Jacinto Habitat Management Unit. The project would implement the western Riverside MSHCP Volume 1, Appendix C which outlines standard BMPs that are intended to reduce impacts to plant communities, special status plant and wildlife species, and jurisdictional waters. The MSHCP BMPs clearly delineate the limits of disturbance that would reduce the potential for indirect impacts to offsite riparian habitat.

Therefore, no impacts are expected to occur to any riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities as a result of project activities. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: None are required. 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 Impact: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.4-32 through 5.4-35. The GPEIR concluded that compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, and implementation of General Plan policies and actions, would reduce potential impacts to wetlands to a less than significant level.

The project would not 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 streambed or drainage features containing Waters of the United States or Waters of the State are present within the project site. No impacts to jurisdictional waters or wetlands regulated under the CWA would occur. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: None are required. 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?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.4- 35 through 5.4-38. The GPEIR concluded that through the protections afforded by the MSHCP, the MBTA, and General Plan goals, policies, and actions, future development under the General Plan 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 project would not 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. The project site may serve as a function in local wildlife dispersal

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-22 Biological Resources
and foraging; however, the loss of foraging habitat and/or effect on local wildlife movement would be less than significant. No long-term or significant effects to wildlife movement are anticipated due to project implementation.

Due to the potential for onsite bird nesting, project construction could result in impacts to nesting birds that would be in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard BIO-1a is required, consistent with the General Plan Action RM-1j. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Resource Management Goal RM-1.

Resource Management Policies 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.6. Resource Management Actions 1c and 1d.

Consistent with Action RM-1, BIO-1a is required.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.4-38 through 5.4-40. The GPEIR concluded that future development projects would be assessed for consistency with the San Jacinto Municipal Code and General Plan goals, policies, and actions. Thus, the General Plan would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts would be less than significant.

The City of San Jacinto Municipal Code does not have tree preservation ordinance or policies that provide for the protection of trees. The project would not conflict with any local policy or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and therefore no potential conflicts would occur. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: None are required. 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?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.4- 40 through 5.4-42. The GPEIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with the provisions of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan and impacts would be less than significant.

The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

The project is located within the San Jacinto Valley Area Plan of the MSHCP within the San Jacinto Habitat Management Unit. The project site is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Cell or Cell Group.

As such, the project is not subject to the Joint Project Review (JPR) or Habitat Acquisition and Negotiation (HANS) processes. The MSHCP states that all projects must be reviewed for compliance

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-23 Biological Resources
with plan policies pertaining to Riparian/Riverine resources, Criteria resources, Narrow Endemic Plant Species, urban/wildlands interface, and additional survey needs as applicable.  Riparian/Riverine Resources: No streambed or drainage features containing MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources are present within the project site. No direct impacts will occur to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources.
 Vernal Pools and Fairy Shrimp: Based on the lack of typical features that could collect water, lack of ponding water evidence, and the lack of vegetation typical of vernal pools or seasonal depressions, suitable conditions for vernal pools, fairy shrimp, and other sensitive species associated with vernal pools are considered absent from the project site.  Riparian Birds: No riparian or open water habitats occur within the project site. Thus, the site lacks suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellowbilled cuckoo, and bald eagle. No suitable nesting habitat occurs on the project site for peregrine falcon. Direct impacts to least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, peregrine falcon, and bald eagle are not anticipated due to the lack of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for these species within the project site.  Mammals: The proposed project does not fall within a mapped survey area for mammals.  Amphibians: The project does not fall within the mapped survey area for amphibian species.  Narrow Endemic Plant Species: No Narrow Endemic Plant species were observed within the project during the November 2021 or April 2022 botanical surveys. Based on the results of the surveys and lack of suitable habitat, Narrow Endemic Plant species are not expected to occur within the project site.
 Criteria Area Plant Species: The project does not fall within the mapped survey area for Criteria Area Plant Species.
 Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly: Delhi soil types are not mapped within the proposed project site, and therefore, no surveys are required for the Delhi sands flower-loving fly.  Burrowing Owl: Projects within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area are subject to the MSHCP burrowing owl survey requirements. Most of the project is within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area. No burrowing owls or active signs were observed during the 2022 focused surveys within the project site. There have been no previous burrowing owl observations recorded onsite. The site provides suitable grassland habitat for foraging but lacks suitable perches for owls. Although burrowing owls were not observed within the project site during the 2022 focused surveys, the project site contains habitat suitable for burrowing owl.

Therefore, a pre-construction survey and additional avoidance and minimization measures (if an owl is detected) are required under Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard BIO1b, consistent with the GP Action RM-1d, Action RM-1i, and Action RM-1j.

The project would result in the loss of approximately 96 acres of land comprised mostly of herbaceous non-native forbs/grasses or active agricultural fields depending on current level of activities. The MSHCP was developed to address the comprehensive regional planning effort and anticipated growth in the County of Riverside. The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the MSHCP.

The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.4-24 Biological Resources
impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Resource Management Goal RM-1.

Resource Management Policies 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.6. Resource Management Actions 1c and 1d.

Consistent with the GP Action RM-1d, Action RM-1i, BIO-1b described above is required.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.5-1 Cultural Resources

4.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Significant
Impact
Peculiar to the
Project or
Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the GPEIR
No Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to in Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GPEIR
The GPEIR determined that while the GP does not directly propose any changes to any historic or archaeological resources, future development allowed under the GP could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of known historical or archaeological resources or unknown historical or archaeological resources that have not yet been identified, which could result in a potentially significant impact. However, the GP Resource Management Element includes goals, policies, and actions addressing heritage resources, including historical and archaeological resources. Additionally, future development projects under the GP would be evaluated for conformance with the City’s GP, Municipal Code, 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 GPEIR determined that with compliance with the GP policies and actions and existing regulations, the GP would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource and impacts would be less than significant.

The GPEIR also determined compliance with the GP 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 ANALYSIS
The following analysis is based on a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by VCS Environmental in June 2022, updated October 2024. The entire report is presented in Appendix C. The purpose of the cultural resources assessment is to identify any historical resources or tribal cultural resources that may exist on the project site, to then determine the sensitivity of the project site for the presence of buried archaeological and/or paleontological material, and to make recommendations to the Lead Agency regarding the development of measures to reduce potential impacts consistent with GP Action RM-3c and Action RM-3f.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.5-2 Cultural Resources
Background
Cultural resources include prehistoric archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites, historic structures, and artifacts made by people in the past. Prehistoric archaeological sites are places that contain the material remains of activities carried out by the native population of the area (Native Americans) prior to the arrival of Europeans in Southern California. Artifacts found in prehistoric sites include flaked stone tools such as projectile points, knives, scrapers, and drills; ground stone toolssuch as manos, metates, mortars, and pestles for grinding seeds and nuts; and bone tools. Historic archaeological sites are places that contain the material remains of activities carried out by people during the period when written records were produced after the arrival of Europeans. Historic archaeological material usually consists of refuse, such as bottles, cans, and food waste, deposited near structure foundations. Historic structures include houses, commercial structures, industrial facilities, and other structures and facilities more than 50 years old.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
CEQA requires a lead agency to determine whether a project would have a significant impact on one (1) or more historical resources. According to Section 15064.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a “historical resource” is defined as a resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (PRC §21084.1); a resource included in a local register of historical resources (14 CCR §15064.5[a][2]); or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (14 CCR §15064.5[a][3]).

Section 5024.1 of the PRC, Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR), and Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the CEQA Statutes were used as the basic guidelines for the cultural resources study. PRC 5024.1 requires evaluation of historical resources to determine their eligibility for listing in the CRHR. The purposes of the CRHR are to maintain listings of the State’s historical resources and to indicate which properties are to be protected from substantial adverse change. The criteria for listing resources in the CRHR, which were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (per the criteria listed at 36 CFR §60.4), are stated below (PRC §5024.1).

Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered a historical resource . . . Generally, a resource shall be considered by a lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources including the following:
(a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; or (b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; or (c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
(d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.5-3 Cultural Resources
Impacts that would materially impair the significance of a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR are considered to have a significant effect on the environment. Impacts to historical resources from the proposed project are considered significant if the project (A) demolishes or materially impairs in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, the California Register; (B) demolishes or materially impairs in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register; or (C) demolishes or materially impairs in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as determined by a lead agency (§15064.5[b][2]).

HUMAN REMAINS
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code provides for the disposition of accidentally discovered human remains. Section 7050.5 states that, if human remains are found, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. Section 5097.98 of the PRC states that, if remains are determined by the Coroner to be of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours which, in turn, must identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains.

Existing Setting

CULTURAL PRE-HISTORY
Early Holocene — CA. 11,600 – 7,600 BP
California’s first inhabitants have traditionally been thought of as big game hunters who lived at the end of the last ice-age (~11,000 years before present [BP]). As the environment warmed and dried, the large Ice Age fauna vanished, marking the end of the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition (WPLT) characterized by large pluvial (rainfall-fed) lakes, streams, marshes, and grasslands exploited by native populations whose sites are generally found along their shores. Populations responded by exploiting a much wider range of flora and fauna to replace the large mammals.

Middle Holocene — CA. 7,600 – 3,650 BP
The Middle Holocene has been thought of as a time of cultural change where early Holocene cultures morphed over time into the Late Holocene cultures. This “Millingstone Horizon” (Wallace 1955) in coastal southern California suggests a shift in subsistence strategies – to the gathering and processing of plant seeds, grasses, and shellfish as the primary dietary staple, with fishing and the hunting of smaller animals playing a less important role. Large habitation sites are seen in inland areas.

Occupation revolved around seasonal and semi-sedentary movements in coastal Orange and San Diego counties. Geographic movement through trade networks are postulated by the presence of Olivella grooved rectangle shell beads as far north as central Oregon dating to 4900-3500 BP.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.5-4 Cultural Resources
Characteristics of the middle Holocene sites include ground stone artifacts (manos and metates) used for processing plant material and shellfish, flexed burial beneath rock or milling stone cairns, flaked core or cobble tools, dart points, cog stones, discoidal, and crescentic.

Late Holocene — CA. 3,650 – 233 BP
Traditional models of this period maintained that the cultural systems encountered by European explorers in the late 18th century were formed during this time. These cultures were said to have access to rich resources (particularly the acorn), invented the bow and arrow, the mortar and pestle, introduced ceramics, and altered mortuary behaviors from inhumations to cremations. These groups were often elevated to utopian levels by earlier researchers.

This period is now recognized to have been one of a more complex local and regional patterns of change that occurred at differing times within the region. Research suggests that cultures in southern California over-exploited high-ranked food items such as shellfish, fish, terrestrial and marine mammals, and plant remains. This, and climatic fluctuations, led to resource depression, which necessitated a shift to less desirable, more costly resources.

The “Takic Wedge” migration of Takic speakers from the Great Basin into southern California appears to have occurred early in this period. It should be noted that many Tribal creation stories assert that native peoples were always in this area and no migration actually occurred.

HISTORY OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO
This history of the City of San Jacinto is adapted from its website (San Jacinto n.d.).

Founded in 1870, and incorporated on April 9, 1888, San Jacinto is one of the County’s oldest communities with roots that stretch back to the earliest days of California. The first native people settled in the San Jacinto Valley thousands of years ago. Later, the Serrano and Cahuilla people arrived.

Their villages were located along and near streams and springs. They were hunters and gatherers and they subsisted primarily on small game and acorns. The Soboba Indian Reservation, just east of San Jacinto, is now the home to the descendants of some of these people.

The first Spanish explorers entered the San Jacinto Valley in the early 1770s. In 1774, and again in 1775, Col. Juan Bautista de Anza led two (2) expeditions up from Mexico, crossing the Colorado River at Yuma and continuing across the Borrego Desert and up Coyote Canyon. For a few years, the Valley was on the main overland route to California.

Beginning around 1820, the Mission San Luis Rey (located in modern day Oceanside) established a cattle ranch in the Valley, which they named for St. Hyacinth (San Jacinto in Spanish). St. Hyacinth ministered in Eastern Europe in the early 13th century; he was canonized in 1594 and his feast day is August 17th. Locally, the name San Jacinto was soon applied to the San Jacinto River and Mt. San Jacinto (elevation 10,804 feet), one (1) of the three (3) tallest peaks in southern California.

In 1834, after California had passed from Spanish to Mexican rule, the Mission San Luis Rey was taken over by the government, and its lands granted to private individuals. In 1842, José Antonio Estudillo was granted the 35,500-acre Rancho San Jacinto Viejo (Old San Jacinto), which took in most of the Valley. Members of his family received two (2) other nearby grants, giving the Estudillo family control over some 110,000 acres in the area. The Estudillo family ran cattle on the land. José Estudillo died in 1852, but his family continued to own most of the Valley until the early 1880s. Two (2) of his sons built

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.5-5 Cultural Resources
two-story brick mansions in 1885 - 1886. The oldest, built by Francisco Estudillo (1844 - 1921) in 1885, is located at Main and Seventh Streets in San Jacinto. It has been named the most significant historical building in the San Jacinto Valley and is one of the most significant in all of Riverside County. Francisco Estudillo was San Jacinto’s first Postmaster (1870), second mayor (1890), and served as the local Indian Agent for the Federal Government in the 1890s. The Estudillo family remained prominent into the 20th Century. In the late 1860s, the family began selling portions of their San Jacinto ranch, and the first American settlers moved into the Valley.

By 1868, a little community had begun to develop on the south side of the Valley, near the San Jacinto River. In 1869, a school district was established. Procco Akimo, a Russian immigrant, established the first store. In 1870, the San Jacinto Post Office was established. During the 1870s, a little town began to grow-up around Procco Akimo’s store. This community was located southeast of modern downtown San Jacinto, on what is now Hewitt Street.

After the Estudillo lands were broken up in early 1889, a group of Los Angeles investors organized the San Jacinto Land Association, which acquired some 15,000 acres of the old ranch. In 1883, they laid out a rival town site less than two (2) miles away. For several years, “Old” San Jacinto and “New” San Jacinto struggled for dominance. The battle was not settled until 1888, when the Santa Fe railroad built a branch line into the Valley from Perris, which terminated on the west side of “New” San Jacinto on land donated for the purpose by Francisco Estudillo. “Old” San Jacinto was far from the tracks and eventually faded away. The new City of San Jacinto was incorporated that same year on April 9, 1888.

Tourism also had an impact on the Valley, beginning around 1900. Natural hot springs along the north side of the Valley stimulated the development of several tourist resorts with hotels, guest cabins and bath houses. Gilman Hot Springs was the best-known resort. It was originally developed in the 1880s, and was acquired in 1913 by the Gilman family, who ran the resort for 65 years. Soboba Hot Springs was also popular, with its Indian-style cottages scattered along the hillside. Further west was Eden Hot Springs.

CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDS SEARCH
A literature review of documents on file at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside was completed by EIC staff on August 24, 2021. The review consisted of an examination of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) San Jacinto, CA 7.5-minute quadrangle to evaluate the project area for any cultural resource sites recorded or cultural resources studies conducted on the parcel and within a one-half mile radius. The EIC is the designated branch of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and houses records concerning archaeological and historic resources in Riverside, Inyo, and Mono Counties. The records search provided data on known archaeological and built environment resources as well as previous studies within one-half mile of the project site. Data sources consulted at the EIC included archaeological records, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (DOE), historic maps, and the Historic Property Data File (HPDF) maintained by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The HPDF contains listings for the CRHR and/or NRHP, California Historical Landmarks (CHL), and California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI).

FIELD SURVEY
An archaeological survey of the project site, utilizing transects spaced 10-15 meters apart, was conducted by VCS Archaeologist Patrick Maxon, RPA, and Senior Paleontologist Brian Kussman on

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.5-6 Cultural Resources
March 2, 2022. The entire project site was examined for the presence of cultural resources. An old, non-functional, steel sandpipe secured in a large concrete base was located in the southern portion of the project site, but it was not considered historically significant.

PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in Section 15064.5?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.5- 24 through 5.5-26. The GPEIR concluded that compliance with the General Plan Update policies and actions and existing regulations, would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. A record search prepared for the project site did not identify any recorded historic era-built environment resources on the project site.

Twenty-four (24) cultural resources have been recorded within one (1) mile of the project site. None are on the project site. Additionally, as many as 45 cultural resources studies have previously been completed within one (1) mile of the project site. Five (5) of the studies (RI-03791, RI-04404, RI-06743, RI-06819, and RI-08350) include at least a portion of the current project site. None resulted in the recordation of any cultural resources. Additionally, a pedestrian survey conducted on the project site found an old, non-functional, steel sandpipe secured in a large concrete base in the southern portion of the project site which was not considered historically significant. Because historical resources have been known to occur within the region, there is the potential that unknown historical resources could be encountered during excavation activities and could potentially be damaged. Consistent with the GP Action RM-3c and Action RM-3f, Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards CR-1 through CR-6 are required which includes onsite monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and Tribal Representative during construction (Note: the conditionsthat occur in this Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist are a variation of the recommended conditions found in the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix C), revised based on consultation held between the City and consulting tribe(s)).

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards CR-1 through CR-6 are required, consistent with the GP Action RM-3c and Action RM-3f. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Resource Management Goal RM-3.

Resource Management Policies 3.1 through 3.3, 3.6, and 3.7. Resource Management Actions 3a, 3b, and 3k through 3o. Consistent with the GP Action RM-3c and Action RM-3f, CR-1 through CR-6 are required.

CR-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall enter a Treatment and Disposition Agreement (TDA) with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians or the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians to address treatment and disposition of archaeological/cultural resources and human remains, that may be uncovered or otherwise discovered during construction of the project. The TDA may establish provisions for tribal monitors. Following execution of the TDA by the developer and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (or the

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.5-7 Cultural Resources
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians), the TDA will be incorporated by reference into the grading permit.

CR-2: Prior to grading permit issuance, the developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist and a Tribal Monitor to prepare an Archaeological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (AMMP). The AMMP shall include the monitoring of all ground disturbing activities and shall include protocol for the mitigation and significance testing of inadvertent archaeological finds.

CR-3: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. If an archeological/cultural assessment demonstrates the potential for archeological/cultural resources to occur on the project site, tribal monitors, including either the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians or the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians will be present to monitor all grading, excavation, grounddisturbing activities, including further survey. Following the agreement of the City, the designated archeologist, the tribal monitor, and any applicable responsible or trustee agencies, grading, excavation, ground-disturbing activities shall be stopped temporarily and redirected in the event any archeological/cultural resources are discovered in order to evaluate the significance of any archeological/cultural resource discovered on the property.

CR-4: Treatment and Disposition of Remains: If human remains are encountered on the property, then the Riverside County Coroner's Office and consulting tribe(s), MUST be contacted within 24 hours of the find, and all work (within 50-feet of the find) halted until a clearance is given by that office and any other involved agencies. If it is determined that the remains might be those of a Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission, consulting tribe(s) and NAHC shall be notified within twenty-four (24) hours, and appropriate measures provided by State law shall be implemented.

CR-5: Non-disclosure of Location Reburials: It shall be the understanding by all parties that unless otherwise required by law, the site of reburial of Native American human remains or cultural artifacts shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, parties, and the City, shall not withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254.

CR-6: Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Items: Ceremonial items and items of cultural patrimony reflect traditional religious beliefs and practices of the Tribal Band. The developer shall agree to return all Native American ceremonial items, artifacts, and items of cultural patrimony that may be found on the project site to the consulting tribe(s) for treatment. In addition, all other cultural items (artifacts) that are recovered during the course of archaeological investigations shall be returned to the appropriate Tribal authorities. Where appropriate and agreed upon in advance, the Developer’s archeologist may conduct limited non-destructive analyses of certain artifact classes if required by applicable law, i.e., CEQA, Section 106 of the NHPA, these mitigation measures, or any associated conditions of approval for the Project. This may include but is not limited or restricted to include shell, bone, ceramic, stone, or other artifacts.

The Developer shall waive any and all claims to ownership of Native American ceremonial and cultural artifacts that may be found on the Project Site. Upon completion of authorized

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.5-8 Cultural Resources
and mandatory archeological analysis, the Developer shall return said artifacts to the appropriate Tribe within a reasonable time period but not to exceed thirty (30) days.

The Tribe associated with the cultural items (artifacts) may wish to rebury the cultural items (artifacts) on or near, the site of discovery, in an area that shall not be subject to future subsurface disturbances. The developer shall accommodate onsite reburial in a location mutually agreed upon by the parties.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.5- 26 through 5.5-28. The GPEIR determined that compliance with the General Plan policies and actions and existing regulations would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource and impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. As previously indicated, a record search and pedestrian survey conducted on the project site did not identify any known archaeological resources. Consistent with the GP Action RM-3c and Action RM-3f, Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards CR-1 through CR-6 are required. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Resource Management Goal RM-3.

Resource Management Policies 3.1 and 3.3. Resource Management Actions 3a, 3c, 3f, and 3o.

Consistent with the GP Action RM-3c and Action RM-3f, CR-1 through CR-6 are required. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.5- 28 through 5.5-30. The GPEIR determined that compliance with the General Plan 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.

Implementation of the project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. No human remains or cemeteries are known to exist within or near the project site. However, there is always the potential that subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project could encounter and potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. Accordingly, this is considered a potentially significant impact. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5; Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5; Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 must be followed.

Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code provides for the disposition of accidentally discovered human remains. Section 7050.5 states that, if human remains are found, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined the appropriate treatment and

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.5-9 Cultural Resources
disposition of the human remains. Section 5097.98 of the PRC states that, if remains are determined by the Coroner to be of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours which, in turn, must identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains. With the implementation of Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards CR-4 and CR-5, potential impacts to human remains would not be peculiar to the project. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Resource Management Goal RM-3.

Resource Management Policy 3.1. Resource Management Actions 3a, 3d, and 3g. Consistent with the GP Action RM-3c and Action RM-3f, CR-4 and CR-5 described above are required.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.5-10 Cultural Resources
This page was intentionally left blank.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.6-1 Energy

4.6 Energy
Would the project:

Significant
Impact
Peculiar to the
Project or
Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the GPEIR
No 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 GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed impacts related to energy throughout the document on pages 5.6-8 through 5.6-

14. The GPEIR determined that buildout of the GP 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 GP, 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 GP includes policies and actions to support energy conservation and renewable energy, as well as reducing energy use. Overall, the GPEIR determined implementation of the GP 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 ANALYSIS
The following analysis is based on an Energy Analysis prepared by Vista Environmental in September 2023. The report is presented in its entirety in Appendix A, Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis.

PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.6- 8 through 5.6-14. The GPEIR determined that the GP would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to energy requirements, energy use inefficiencies, and/or the energy intensiveness of

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.6-2 Energy
materials by amount and fuel type during GP buildout of the planning area, including during construction, operations, maintenance, and/or removal. The City of San Jacinto would comply with all existing energy standards and would not result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources.

Buildout of the GP would not be expected to cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. The proposed project would impact energy resources during construction and operation. Energy resources that would be potentially impacted include electricity, natural gas, and petroleum-based fuel supplies and distribution systems. This analysis includes a discussion of the potential energy impacts of the proposed project, with emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

CONSTRUCTION ENERGY CONSUMPTION
The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include demolition and grading of the project site, building construction and application of architectural coatings and paving of the proposed onsite roads. The proposed project would also consume energy resources during construction in three (3) general forms:
1) Petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction worker travel to and from the project site, as well as delivery and haul truck trips (e.g., hauling of demolition material to offsite reuse and disposal facilities). 2) Electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power.
3) Energy used in the production of construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.

CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ELECTRICITY
During construction, the proposed project would consume electricity to construct the new structures and infrastructure. Electricity would be supplied to the project site by Southern California Edison and would be obtained from the existing electrical lines in the vicinity of the project site. The use of electricity from existing power lines rather than temporary diesel or gasoline powered generators would minimize impacts on fuel consumption. Electricity consumed during project construction would vary throughout the construction period based on the construction activities being performed. Various construction activities include electricity associated with the conveyance of water that would be used during project construction for dust control (supply and conveyance) and electricity to power any necessary lighting during construction, electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power. Such electricity demand would be temporary, nominal, and would cease upon the completion of construction. Overall, construction activities associated with the proposed project would require limited electricity consumption that would not be expected to have

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.6-3 Energy
an adverse impact on available electricity supplies and infrastructure. Therefore, the use of electricity during project construction would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Since there are currently power lines in the vicinity of the project site, it is anticipated that only a few improvements would be required to Southern California Edison distribution lines and equipment with development of the proposed project. Compliance with the City’s guidelines and requirements would ensure that the proposed project fulfills its responsibilities relative to infrastructure installation, coordinates any electrical infrastructure removals or relocations, and limits any impacts associated with construction of the project. Construction of the project’s electrical infrastructure would not be anticipated to adversely affect the electrical infrastructure serving the surrounding uses or utility system capacity.

Construction-Related Natural Gas
Construction of the proposed project typically would not involve the consumption of natural gas.

Natural gas would not be supplied to support construction activities, thus there would be no demand generated by construction. Since there is currently natural gas service in the vicinity of the project site, construction of the proposed project would be limited to installation of new natural gas connections within the project site. Development of the proposed project would likely not require extensive infrastructure improvements to serve the project site. Construction-related energy usage impacts associated with the installation of natural gas connections are expected to be confined to trenching to place the lines below the surface. In addition, prior to ground disturbance, the proposed project would notify and coordinate with SoCalGas to identify the locations and depth of all existing gas lines and avoid disruption of gas service. Therefore, construction-related impacts to natural gas supply and infrastructure would not be peculiar to this project.

Construction-Related Petroleum Fuel Use
Petroleum-based fuel usage represents the highest amount of transportation energy potentially consumed during construction, which would be utilized by both off-road equipment operating on the project site and on-road automobiles transporting workers to and from the project site and on-road trucks transporting equipment and supplies to the project site.

The off‐road construction equipment fuel usage was calculated through use of the off‐road equipment assumptions and fuel use assumptions and found that construction of the proposed project would consume 165,844 gallons of gasoline and 326,237 gallons of diesel fuel. This equates to 0.016% of the gasoline and 0.22% of the diesel used annually in Riverside County. As such, the construction‐related petroleum use would be nominal, when compared to current countywide petroleum usage rates.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would be required to adhere to all State and SCAQMD regulations for off-road equipment and on-road trucks, which provide minimum fuel efficiency standards. As such, construction activities for the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts regarding transportation energy would not be peculiar. Development of the project would not result in the need to manufacture construction materials or create new building material facilities specifically to supply the proposed project. It is difficult to measure the energy used in the production of construction materials such as asphalt, steel, and concrete. It is reasonable to assume that the production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest of minimizing the cost of doing business.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.6-4 Energy

OPERATIONAL ENERGY
The on-going operation of the proposed project would require the use of energy resources for multiple purposes including, but not limited to, heating/ventilating/air conditioning (HVAC), refrigeration, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Energy would also be consumed during operations related to water usage, solid waste disposal, landscape equipment and vehicle trips.

Operations-Related Electricity
Operation of the proposed project would result in consumption of electricity at the project site. The proposed project would consume 1,932,107 kilowatt‐hours per year of electricity. This equates to

0.011% of the electricity consumed annually in Riverside County. As such, the operations‐related electricity use would be nominal, when compared to current electricity usage rates in the County.

It should be noted that the proposed project would be required to meet the 2022 Title 24, Part 6 building energy efficiency standards that have been developed to meet the State’s goal of zero-netenergy use for new homes. The zero net energy use would be achieved through a variety of measures to make new homes more energy efficient and by also requiring installation of photovoltaic systems of adequate size to generate enough electricity to meet the zero-net energy use standard. The size of the PV system required for the project pursuant to Title 24, requires that the proposed project install at least 203 Kilowatts of photovoltaic panels within the proposed project. Although, the CalEEMod model found that with implementation of Title 24 Part 6 standards, the proposed project would continue to utilize a nominal amount of power. It should be noted that the electricity usage and emission rates utilized by the CalEEMod model are based on regional average usage rates for existing homes, which were not all built to the most current Title 24 Part 6, standards. The CalEEMod model provides a conservative or worst-case analysis of electricity use from the proposed project. Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project would be designed and built to minimize electricity use and that existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to support the proposed project’s electricity demand. Thus, peculiar impacts to electrical supply and infrastructure capacity are not anticipated.

Operations-Related Natural Gas
Operation of the proposed project would result in increased consumption of natural gas at the project site. The proposed project would consume 15,079 MBTU per year of natural gas. This equates to

0.035% of the natural gas consumed annually in Riverside County. As such, the operations‐related natural gas use would be nominal, when compared to current natural gas usage rates in the County.

It should be noted that, the proposed project would comply with all Federal, State, and City requirements related to the consumption of natural gas, that includes CCR Title 24, Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards. The CCR Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11 standards require numerous energy efficiency measures to be incorporated into the proposed structures, including enhanced insulation as well as use of efficient natural gas appliances and HVAC units. Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project would be designed and built to minimize natural gas use and that existing and planned natural gas capacity and natural gas supplies would be sufficient to support the proposed project’s natural gas demand. Thus, peculiar impacts to natural gas supply and infrastructure capacity are not anticipated.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.6-5 Energy
Operations-Related Vehicular Petroleum Fuel Usage
Operation of the proposed project would result in increased consumption of petroleum‐based fuels related to vehicular travel to and from the project site. The proposed project would consume 442,750 gallons of gasoline per year from vehicle travel. This equates to 0.04% of the gasoline consumed annually in Riverside County. As such, the operations‐related petroleum use would be nominal, when compared to current petroleum usage rates.

It should be noted that, the proposed project would comply with all Federal, State, and City requirements related to the consumption of transportation energy that includes California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 10 California Green Building Standards that require that all new garages to install electrical panels of adequate size to support the installation of electric vehicle charging systems.

The proposed project would also be located as near as 540 feet from an existing Riverside Transit bus stop, which will encourage the use of public transportation. Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed project will be designed and built to minimize transportation energy through the promotion of the use of electric‐powered vehicles and it is anticipated that existing and planned capacity and supplies of transportation fuels would be sufficient to support the proposed project’s demand. Thus, peculiar impacts in regard to transportation energy supply and infrastructure capacity are not anticipated.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Resource Management Policies 5.1 through 5.9. Resource Management Actions 5a through 5i. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.6- 8 through 5.6-14. As discussed above, the GPEIR determined that buildout of the GP would not be expected to cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The applicable energy plan for the proposed project would be the City of San Jacinto GP Resource Management Element. As described in the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis (Appendix A) and summarized below, the proposed project’s consistency with the applicable energy-related policies in the GP are shown in Table 4.6-1, Proposed Project Compliance with Applicable General Plan Energy Policies.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.6-6 Energy
Table 4.6-1
Proposed Project Compliance with Applicable General Plan Energy Policies Policy No. General Plan Policy Proposed Project Implementation Actions Goal RM-5: A community that safely manages its energy and mineral resources.

RM-5.3 Renewable Energy. Promote the development
and use of renewable energy resources to
reduce dependency on fossil fuels.

Consistent. The proposed homes will be designed to
meet or exceed the 2022 Title 24 Part 6 building
standards that require all single-family homes built in California to have rooftop solar PV systems as well as
battery backup systems that will reduce dependency on
fossil fuels.

RM-5.4 Energy-Efficient Materials. Promote the use of
energy-efficient materials, equipment, and
design in public and private facilities and
infrastructure.

Consistent. The proposed homes will be designed to
meet or exceed the 2022 Title 24 Part 6 building
standards that require use of energy-efficient
materials.

RM-5.5 Energy Conservation. Promote energy
conservation and recycling by the public and
private sectors.

Consistent. The proposed project will be designed to
meet the CalGreen requirements that requires that a
minimum of 65% of the construction debris is recycled.

Source: City of San Jacinto, 2022 and Vista Environmental, 2023.

As shown in Table 4.6-1, the proposed project would be consistent with all applicable energy-related policies from the GP, as analyzed above. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Resource Management Policies 5.1 through 5.9. Resource Management Actions 5a through 5i.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.7-1 Geology and Soils

4.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:

Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the GPEIR
No Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
4) 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 offsite 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
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed impacts related to geology and soils on pages 5.7-20 through 5.7-36. The GPEIR 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 GP 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, Municipal Code, and other regulations. Subsequent

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.7-2 Geology and Soils
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 Municipal Code, 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 GPEIR 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 GPEIR determined implementation of the GP 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, Municipal Code, 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 GP would be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, the GPEIR determined that with the implementation of the policies and actions in the GP, as well as applicable State and City requirements, potential impacts associated with erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

The GPEIR 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 GP policies and actions, Municipal Code, 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 GPEIR determined that with the implementation of the policies and actions in the GP, as well as applicable State and City codes, potential impacts associated with unstable geologic conditions with the potential to result in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse would be reduced to less than significant.

The GPEIR determined the GP 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 nonuniformly 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

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.7-3 Geology and Soils
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 designlevel geotechnical investigation would ensure impacts from problematic soils are minimized.

Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.

Additionally, the GPEIR determined that with implementation of the policies and actions in the GP, 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.

The GPEIR discussed impacts related to paleontological resources on pages 5.7-33 through 5.7-35. The GPEIR 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 GPEIR determined that with implementation of the GP policies and actions and compliance with Development Code 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 GP would be reduced to less than significant.

PROJECT ANALYSIS
The following analysis is based on the Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation prepared for the project site by LGC Geotechnical, Inc., in December 2021 and is presented in Appendix D. The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to evaluate the onsite subsurface soil conditions relative to geotechnical engineering characteristics of the project site and to provide geotechnical recommendations relative to the proposed project. The preliminary geotechnical investigation included performing a site reconnaissance, conducting field subsurface exploration through soil borings and sampling, laboratory testing program of selected soil samples and performing engineering analyses of the data. In addition, the GP includes the following uniformly applied development policies and standards that are applicable to the project: Action PS-1a, Action PS-1d, Action PS-1f, Action PS1g, Action RM-2a, and Action RM-3e.

PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1) 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.

No Impact: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on page 5.5-20 and was determined to have a less than significant impact with compliance of regulatory requirements, and policies and actions of the GP. As stated in the GPEIR, the City is located within the San Jacinto fault zone.

Thus, the GPEIR determined that with the implementation of the policies and actions in the GP, as well as applicable State and City requirements, potential impacts associated with a seismic event, including rupture of an earthquake fault, would be less than significant.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.7-4 Geology and Soils
Implementation of the project would not be subject to 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. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Act) regulates development near active faults in order to mitigate the hazards of surface fault rupture. An active fault is one that has experienced earthquake activity in the past 11,000 years. Under the Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate special study zones along known active faults, known as the AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zones. The Act also requires that prior to approval of a project, a geologic study be prepared to define and delineate any hazards from surface rupture and that a 50-foot building setback be established from any known trace hazard. According to the project geotechnical report and the California Geologic Survey Seismic Hazard Map for San Jacinto USGS Quadrangle, there are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones on the project site or in the nearby area. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly be exposed to ground rupture impacts. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Public Safety Policies 1.1 through

1.6, and 1.8. Public Safety Actions 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 1f, and 1g. Resource Management Action 1g. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on page

5.5-20. The GPEIR determined that with the implementation of the policies and actions in the GP, as well as applicable State and City requirements, potential impacts associated with a seismic event, including seismic ground shaking, would be less than significant.

The project site would be subject to strong seismic ground shaking. The project site is situated within a seismically active region that could be subject to ground shaking impacts from several active faults in the region. The closest known active faults are the Casa Loma Fault (approximately three (3) quarters of a mile south-west of the site) and the Claremont Fault (approximately two (2) miles north-east of the site). Both of these faults are a part of the San Jacinto Fault Zone. Historically, the Casa Loma Fault has experienced an earthquake as high as

6.9 on the Richter Scale. In the event an earthquake of this magnitude occurs, the project site could experience periodic shaking, possibly of considerable intensity. The potential seismic shaking risks at the project site would be like other areas in southern California. The proposed structures on the project site would be required to be designed to meet the City’s construction development standards, and the seismic design parameters of the California Uniform Building Code to withstand potential seismic shaking impacts caused by an earthquake within an acceptable level of risk. Additionally, the project would comply with design recommendations provided in the project geotechnical evaluation. With compliance with the California Uniform Building Code Seismic Safety Standards and implementation of Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard GEO-1, consistent with GP Action PS-1a, Action PS-1d, Action PS-1f, and Action PS-1g, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects of ground shaking. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.7-5 Geology and Soils
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Public Safety Policies 1.1 through

1.6, and 1.8. Public Safety Actions 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 1f, and 1g. Resource Management Action 1g.

Consistent with GP Action PS-1a, Action PS-1d, Action PS-1f, and Action PS-1g, GEO-1 is required.

GEO-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of San Jacinto shall confirm that grading and construction plans for the project incorporate design recommendations from the Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation prepared by LGC Geotechnical, Inc. in December 2021. The design recommendations shall address site earthwork, preliminary foundation, soil bearing and lateral resistance, lateral earth pressure and retaining wall design, preliminary asphalt and concrete sections, soil corrosivity and metal, non-structural concrete flat work, subsurface water infiltration, control of surface water and drainage control, grading foundation and geotechnical observation.
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on page

Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which loosely deposited soils located below the water table undergo rapid loss of shear strength due to excess pore pressure generation when subject to strong earthquake induced ground shaking. Liquefaction is known generally to occur in saturated or near-saturated cohesionless soils at depths shallower than 50 feet below the ground surface. According to the County of Riverside General Plan, the area surrounding the site ranges from moderate to high liquefaction susceptibility, the majority of the subject site being considered “Moderate,” with the eastern portion of the site being “High” (County of Riverside, 2018). The data obtained from our field evaluation indicates that the site contains isolated sandy layers susceptible to liquefaction interfingered with fine-grained non-liquefiable soils. The proposed structures on the project site would be required to be designed to meet the City’s construction development standards, and the seismic design parameters of the California Uniform Building Code to address potential liquefaction constraints associated with an earthquake within an acceptable level of risk. Additionally, the project would comply with design recommendations provided in the project geotechnical evaluation. With compliance with the California Uniform Building Code Seismic Safety Standards and implementation of Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard GEO-1, consistent with GP Action PS-1a, Action PS-1d, Action PS-1f, and Action PS-1g, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects of ground shaking. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Public Safety Policies 1.1 through

1.6, and 1.8. Public Safety Actions 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 1f, and 1g. Resource Management Action 1g.

Consistent with GP Action PS-1a, Action PS-1d, Action PS-1f, and Action PS-1g, GEO-1 is required.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.7-6 Geology and Soils
4) Landslides?
No Impact: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.5-20. The GPEIR determined that with the implementation of the policies and actions in the GP, as well as applicable State and City requirements, potential impacts associated with a seismic event, including landslides, would be less than significant.

The project site would not be subject to landslides. According to the California Geologic Survey Landslide Hazard Map for the San Jacinto USGS Quadrangle, the project site is identified as not being susceptible to earthquake induced landslides. Due to the relatively low topographic relief on the site, the potential for landslides on the site is considered low. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: None are required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on page on pages 5.7-23. The GPEIR determined that with the implementation of the policies and actions in the GP, as well as applicable State and City requirements, potential impacts associated with erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

The land clearing and grading activities associated with the proposed project would uncover soil, which could be subject to erosion impacts caused by water and wind. Additionally, construction equipment and vehicles could indirectly transport sediment to offsite locations. Construction projects which disturb one (1) or more acres of soil are required to obtain coverage under a general construction permit issued from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The General Construction Permit would require the filing of a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board and the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would provide a list of Best Management Practices to minimize potential adverse erosion impacts. Compliance with applicable NPDES erosion control requirements would ensure that impacts related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil are not peculiar to the project. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements, including obtaining a General Construction Permit and implementation of the SWPPP, would ensure that potential erosion impacts are not peculiar to the project. Such requirements are consistent with GP Action PS-1g and Action RM-2a. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Public Safety Action 1g. Resource Management Policy 2.5. Resource Management Actions 1f and 2a. 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 onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on page 5.7-

24. The GPEIR determined that with the implementation of the policies and actions in the GP, as well

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.7-7 Geology and Soils
as applicable State and City codes, potential impacts associated with unstable geologic conditions with the potential to result in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse would be reduced to less than significant.

The project would not 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 onsite or offsite landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The geotechnical evaluation prepared for the proposed project identified the following geologic conditions on the project site:
 Landslides: As previously identified, the project site is identified as not being susceptible to earthquake induced landslides.
 Liquefaction: As previously identified, the majority of the project site has moderate liquefaction potential and the eastern portion of the site has a high liquefaction potential.  Settlement: The results of the geotechnical evaluation indicate that liquefaction settlement is estimated to be on the order of 1.5 inches and dry sand dynamic settlement to be on the order of 0.5 inches. This results in a total of seismic settlement on the order of 2 inches or less.  Lateral Spreading: Due to the site being relatively level and the lack of an adjacent “free face” to drive lateral spreading, the potential for lateral spreading is considered very low.  Soil Conditions: From a geotechnical perspective, the existing onsite soils are considered suitable material for use as general fill, provided that they are relatively free from rocks (larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension), construction debris, and significant organic material.

The project geotechnical evaluation has determined that development of the project site would be feasible from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint, provided geotechnical recommendations identified in the project technical evaluation are incorporated into the design of the project. With implementation of Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard GEO-1, consistent with GP Action PS-1a, Action PS-1d, Action PS-1f, and Action PS-1g, potential geologic and soil constraints and associated impacts would not be peculiar to the project. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Land Use Goal LU-3. Land Use Policies

3.4. Land Use Actions 3a. Public Safety Goal PS-1. Public Safety Policies 1.1 through 1.8. Public Safety Actions 1a, 1b, and 1d through 1f. Resource Management Goal RM-2. Resource Management Actions 1f, 1g, and 2a. Consistent with GP Action PS-1a, Action PS-1d, Action PS-1f, and Action PS-1g, GEO-1 is required.
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? Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR 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 GP. 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. Future development proposals under the GP would be reviewed to identify appropriate

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.7-8 Geology and Soils
design criteria and specifications set forth in a design-level geotechnical investigation to ensure impacts from problematic soils are minimized, reducing potential soils impacts to less than significant.

The project would not 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. Expansive soils are defined as fine grained silts and clays which are subject to swelling and contracting. The amount of swelling and contracting would be subject to the amount of fine-grained clay materials present in the soils and the amount of moisture either introduced or extracted from the soils. Based on the results of laboratory testing of investigations of nearby sites, site soils are anticipated to have a “Very Low” expansion potential and potential impacts would not be peculiar to project. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: None are required. 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 Impact: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR 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 be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: None are required. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on page 5.7-33 and was determined to have a less than significant impact with compliance with the GP policies and actions and compliance with Development Code Section 17.500.020.

The following analysis is based on a paleontological record search that was prepared by Western Science Center December 28, 2021. The record search is presented in Attachment B, Paleontological Records Search of Appendix C, Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment.

Implementation of the project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. According to the record search conducted by Western Science Center, the geologic units underlying the project area are mapped entirely as alluvial fan deposits dating to the Holocene epoch. While Holocene units are not typically considered to be highly sensitive for fossil resources, the Western Science Center does have numerous Pleistocene localities in similarly mapped sediments less than three (3) miles from the project area. The presence of nearby fossil localities associated with the Diamond Valley Lake Project indicates that the geologic mapping of the area may not accurately represent the age of the underlying sediment. Pleistocene alluvial units are known to produce fossil specimens including those associated with mastodon (Mammut pacificus), mammoth (Mammuthus columbi), ancient horse (Equus sp.), camel (Camelops hesternus), sabertooth cats (Smilodon fatalis) and many more. These species are well documented at Diamond Valley Lake as

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.7-9 Geology and Soils
well as throughout southern California. Based on fossil resources that have been identified in similar sediments less than three (3) miles from the project area, the proposed project could have the potential to encounter unknown paleontological resources, and therefore it is recommended that any excavations in excess of three (3) feet on the project site should be closely monitored to quickly and professionally recover any fossil remains while not impeding development. Monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates.

Monitors must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units described are not present, or, if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. With implementation of Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard PALEO-1, consistent with GP Action RM-3e, potential impacts to paleontological resources would not be peculiar to the project (Note: the paleontological condition that occurs in this Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist is a variation of the recommended conditions found in the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix C), revised based on consultation held between the City and consulting tribe(s)). The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Resource Management Policies 3.1, 3.3,

3.4, 3.6, and 3.7. Resource Management Actions 3a, 3c, 3d, 3e, 3f, and 3o. Consistent with GP Action RM-3e, PALEO-1 is required.

PALEO-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Paleontological Resources: If paleontological resources are encountered during grading, ground disturbance activities shall cease so a qualified paleontological monitor can evaluate any paleontological resources exposed during the grading activity. If paleontological resources are encountered, adequate funding shall be provided to collect, curate and report on these resources to ensure the values inherent in the resources are adequately characterized and preserved. Collected specimens will be sent to the appropriate authorities for collection.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.7-10 Geology and Soils
This page was intentionally left blank.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.8-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:

Significant
Impact
Peculiar to the
Project or
Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the GPEIR
No 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?

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) on pages 5.8-18 through 5.8-41. The GPEIR determined implementation of the GP 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 GP 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 carbon 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 GPEIR 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 GPEIR 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 GPEIR determined implementation of the GPwould not conflict with the implementation of CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan, which was in effect at the time the GP 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 GPEIR determined impacts related to consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan would be less than significant.

Additionally, the GPEIR determined that the GP would be consistent with the GHG reduction-related actions and strategies contained in the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SC). However, the GP 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.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.8-2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In order to further reduce GHG emissions associated with buildout of the GP, 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 GP would meet the 2030 and 2050 community emissions targets, and the GPEIR determined that impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

PROJECT ANALYSIS
The following analysis is based on the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis prepared by Vista Environmental in September 2023. The report is presented in its entirety in Appendix A.

Background
Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in the Earth’s radiation amount by trapping infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface, which otherwise would have escaped to space. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic (caused or produced by humans) emissions of these greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, commercial/retail, agriculture, utilities, transportation, and residential land uses. Emissions of CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, results from off gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Sinks of CO2, where CO2 is stored outside of the atmosphere, include uptake by vegetation and dissolution into the ocean. The following provides a description of each of the greenhouse gases and their global warming potential.  Water Vapor: Water vapor is the most abundant, important, and variable GHG in the atmosphere. Water vapor is not considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere it maintains a climate necessary for life. Changes in its concentration are primarily considered a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change.
 Carbon Dioxide: The natural production and absorption of CO2 is achieved through the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean. However, humankind has altered the natural carbon cycle by burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is projected to increase to a minimum of 540 ppm by 2100 as a direct result of anthropogenic sources. This could result in an average global temperature rise of at least two (2) degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
 Methane: CH4 is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, although its atmospheric concentration is less than that of CO2. Its lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10 to 12 years), compared to some other GHGs (such as CO2, N2O, and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)).

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.8-3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Nitrous Oxide: Concentrations of N2O also began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution. In 1998, the global concentration of this GHG was documented at 314 parts per billion (ppb). N2O is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen.  Chlorofluorocarbons: CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane (C2H6) with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the Earth’s surface).
 Hydrofluorocarbons: HFCs are synthetic man-made chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Out of all the GHGs, they are one (1) of three (3) groups with the highest global warming potential.
 Perfluorocarbons: Two (2) common PFCs are tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6). Concentrations of CF4 in the atmosphere are over 70 ppt. The two (2) main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.  Sulfur Hexafluoride: Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. SF6 has the highest global warming potential of any gas evaluated; 23,900 times that of CO2.
 Aerosols: Aerosols are particles emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light.

GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL
GHGs have varying global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere; it is the cumulative radiative forcing effects of a gas over a specified time horizon resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to the reference gas, CO2. The GHGs listed by the IPCC and the CEQA Guidelines are discussed in this section in order of abundance in the atmosphere. Water vapor, the most abundant GHG, is not included in this list because its natural concentrations and fluctuations far outweigh its anthropogenic (human-made) sources. To simplify reporting and analysis, GHGs are commonly defined in terms of their GWP. The IPCC defines the GWP of various GHG emissions on a normalized scale that recasts all GHG emissions in terms of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). As such, the GWP of CO2 is equal to 1. The GWP values used in this analysis are based on the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which are used in CARB’s 2014 Scoping Plan Update and the CalEEMod Model Version 2022.1 and are detailed in Table 4.8-1, Global Warming Potentials, Atmospheric Lifetimes and Abundances of GHGs. The IPCC has updated the Global Warming Potentials of some gases in their Fifth Assessment Report; however, the new values have not yet been incorporated into the CalEEMod model that has been utilized in this analysis.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.8-4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 4.8-1
Global Warming Potentials, Atmospheric Lifetimes and Abundances of GHGs Gas Atmospheric Lifetime
(years)1
Global Warming Potential
(100 Year Horizon)2
Atmospheric
Abundance
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50-200 1 379 ppm
Methane (CH4) 9-15 25 1,774 ppb
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 114 298 319 ppb
HFC-23 270 14,800 18 ppt
HFC-134a 14 1,430 35 ppt
HFC-152a 1.4 124 3.9 ppt
PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 7,390 74 ppt
PFC: Hexafluoroethane (C2F6) 10,000 12,200 2.9 ppt
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 22,800 5.6 ppt
Definitions: ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; ppt = parts per trillion Notes:
1 Defined as the half-life of the gas. 2 Compared to the same quantity of CO2 emissions and is based on the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 standard, which is utilized in CalEEMod (Version 2022.1) that is used in this report (CalEEMod user guide: Appendix A).

Source: Vista Environmental, Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis; September 14, 2023.

Existing Setting
The regulatory setting related to global climate change is addressed through the efforts of various international, federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to reduce GHG emissions through legislation, regulations, planning, policy making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for global climate change regulations are discussed below.

INTERNATIONAL
In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to evaluate the impacts of global climate change and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United States joined other countries around the world in signing the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreement with the goal of controlling GHG emissions. The parties of the UNFCCC adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which set binding GHG reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries, for the objective of reducing their collective GHG emissions by 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 182 countries but has not been ratified by the United States. It should be noted that Japan and Canada opted out of the Kyoto Protocol and the remaining developed countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol have not met their Kyoto targets. The Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012 and the amendment for the second commitment period from 2013 to 2020 has not yet entered into legal force. The Parties to the Kyoto Protocol negotiated the Paris Agreement in December 2015, agreeing to set a goal of limiting global warming to less than two (2) degrees Celsius compared with pre-industrial levels. The Paris Agreement has been adopted by 195 nations with 147 ratifying it, including the United States by President Obama, who ratified it by Executive Order on September 3, 2016. On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced that the United States is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and on January 21, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order rejoining the Paris Agreement.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.8-5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

FEDERAL
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for implementing federal policy to address global climate change. The Federal government administers a wide array of publicprivate partnerships to reduce U.S. GHG intensity. These programs focus on energy efficiency, renewable energy, methane, and other non-CO2 gases, agricultural practices and implementation of technologies to achieve GHG reductions. EPA implements several voluntary programs that substantially contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions.

STATE
California Air Resources Board (CARB) has proposed interim statewide CEQA thresholds for GHG emissions and released Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for GHGs under the California Environmental Quality Act, on October 24, 2008, that has been utilized by the SCAQMD’s GHG Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group in their framework for developing SCAQMD’s draft GHG emissions thresholds. The State currently has no regulations that establish ambient air quality standards for GHGs. However, the State has passed laws directing CARB to develop actions to reduce GHG emissions. The following is a listing of relevant State laws to reduce GHG emissions. Detail discussion of each State law is presented in the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis in Appendix A.  Executive Order B-55-18 and Assembly Bill 1279
 Executive Order N-79-20
 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6  California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11  Senate Bill 100
 Executive Order B-48-18 and Assembly Bill 2127
 Executive Order B-30-15, Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197  Executive Order B-29-15
 Assembly Bill 341 and Senate Bills 939 and 1374
 Senate Bill 375
 Assembly Bill 1109
 Executive Order S-1-07
 Senate Bill 97
 Assembly Bill 32
 Assembly Bill 1493

REGIONAL
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emission sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources. The SCAQMD is also responsible for GHG emissions for projects where it is the lead agency. However, for other projects in the SCAB where it is not the lead agency, it is limited to providing resources to other lead agencies in order to assist them in determining GHG emission thresholds and GHG reduction measures. In order

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.8-6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
to assist local agencies with direction on GHG emissions, the SCAQMD organized a Working Group, which is described below.

SCAQMD Working Group. Since neither CARB nor the OPR has developed a GHG emissions threshold, the SCAQMD formed a Working Group to develop significance thresholds related to GHG emissions.

At the September 28, 2010, Working Group meeting, the SCAQMD released its most current version of the draft GHG emissions thresholds, which recommends a tiered approach that either provides a quantitative annual threshold of 3,500 MTCO2e for residential uses, 1,400 MTCO2e for commercial uses, 3,000 MTCO2e for mixed uses, and 10,000 MTCO2e for industrial.

Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development and the environment. SCAG is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the majority of the southern California region and is the largest MPO in the nation. With respect to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Connect SoCal and 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) addresses regional development and growth forecasts. Although the Connect SoCal and 2019 FTIP are primarily planning documents for future transportation projects and a key component of these plans is to integrate land use planning with transportation planning that promotes higher density infill development in close proximity to existing transit service. These plans form the basis for the land use and transportation components of the AQMP, which are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts and in consistency analysis included in the AQMP. The Connect SoCal, 2019 FTIP, and AQMP are based on projections originating within the City and County General Plans.

CITY OF SAN JACINTO
Local jurisdictions, such as the City of San Jacinto, have the authority and responsibility to reduce GHG emissions through their police power and decision-making authority. Specifically, the City of San Jacinto is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of GHG emissions resulting from its land use decisions. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the global climate change potential of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant global climate change impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation.

The City of San Jacinto participated with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), regional planning efforts in the adoption of the Subregional Climate Action Plan (Subregional CAP), September 2014. The Subregional CAP was developed in order to meet the requirements of AB 32 and SB 375 and includes a regional GHG emissions inventory, summarizes actions that participating jurisdictions have selected to reduce GHG emissions, and provides specific reduction goals for each participating jurisdiction.

The GP specifies a target to reduce community-wide emissions to 1.83 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (“MTCO2e”) per service population by the year 2030 and to 0.62 MTCO2e per service population by 2050 (GP Policy RM-4.9). The GPEIR references GP policies and actions that would assist the City in reducing GHG emissions (GPEIR, p. 5.8-28). Because the associated reductions in GHG emissions were determined to not be quantifiable or verifiable, the GP’s impact to GHG emissions was identified as significant and unavoidable (GPEIR, pp. 5.8-37, 5.8-41).

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.8-7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

PROJECT IMPACTS
The proposed project is located within the City of San Jacinto that recently adopted a GP and certified the GPEIR. The GPEIR is a Program EIR that examined the potential impacts of GP build-out through the year 2040, that includes an additional 16,252 housing units. The GPEIR identified a significant unavoidable impact to GHG emissions and adopted a statement of overriding considerations. The GPEIR includes a list of measures that the City of San Jacinto will be implementing that will reduce GHG emissions, as outlined in the City of San Jacinto 2040 GPEIR – Greenhouse Gas Report by: MD Acoustics, Dated: 6/29/2022. The GPEIR actions applicable to the proposed project include Action RM4n, Action RM-4o, Action RM-5e, and Action RM 7a. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.8- 18 through 5.8-37 and impacts were determined that buildout of the City Land Use Policy Map would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to GHGs. These lands are planned for future development and the GPEIR adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for potential GHG emissions. The GPEIR found mitigation measures to be infeasible and to conflict with other objectives of the GP to proactively plan for and accommodate local and regional growth in a responsible manner. Although the GP includes policies and actions to support continued reduction of GHG emissions, projected emissions identified in the GPEIR were determined significant and unavoidable.

The proposed project consists of a residential development that would include up to 424 single-family homes. The project is anticipated to generate GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, mobile sources, waste disposal, water usage, and construction equipment. The project’s GHG emissions have been calculated with the CalEEMod model based on the construction and operational parameters. A summary of the results is shown below in Table 4.8-2, Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions.

Table 4.8-2
Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions
Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Area Sources1 7.29 <0.01 <0.01 7.32
Energy Usage2 1,104 0.1003 0.01 1,107
Mobile Sources3 5,291 0.22 0.25 5,380
Solid Waste4 34.7 3.47 0.00 122
Water and Wastewater5 30.8 0.56 0.01 49
Refrigeration6 - - - 1.19
Construction7 157.1 0.01 0.01 159.4
Total Emissions 6,624 4.36 0.28 6,826
Notes:
1 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, hearths, and landscaping equipment. 2 Energy usage consists of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. 3 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 4 Waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 5 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity used for transport of water and processing of wastewater. 6 Refrigeration includes GHG emissions from refrigerants in air conditioning units. 7 Construction emissions amortized over 30 years as recommended in the SCAQMD GHG Working Group on November 19, 2009.

Source: Vista Environmental, Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis; September 14, 2023.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.8-8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Implementation of the project would create annual GHG emissions (6,826 MTCO2e) above the SCAQMD Working Group’s draft annual GHG emissions threshold of 3,500 MTCO2e for residential uses; however, this is not peculiar to the project based on the relatively greater number of units (424) compared to other similar residential projects of a smaller size subject to the same threshold. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the development density established by existing zoning and the GP. The Project would also be subject to GP Action RM-4n, Action RM-4o, Action RM-5e, and Action RM 7a, which would help reduce GHG emissions. Because the City of San Jacinto GPEIR adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the generation of GHG emissions, the proposed construction of 424 residential units and associated GHG emissions would not be considered peculiar to the project. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Land Use Policies 1.1, 2.2, 4.4, and 5.5.

Mobility Goals M-3, M-4, and M-6. Mobility Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 4.1 through 4.5,

6.1, 6.2, and 6.4. Mobility Actions 1a and 6c. Public Safety Policies 7.5 and 7.11. Public Safety Actions 7b through 7f. Resource Management Goals RM-4 and RM-5. Resource Management Policies 1.1, 1.4,

4.1, 4.2, 4.4 through 4.8, 4.12, 5.1 through 5.9, 7.1, 7.9, 7.10, 10.1, 10.2, 10.4 through 10.7. Resource Management Actions 1e, 4b, 4c, 4d, 4g, 4k, 4l, 4n, 4o, 5a through 5i, 7a, and 10a through 10c. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.8- 37 through 5.8-41 and impacts were determined that while the GP is consistent with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan and the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS, the GP would not meet the established reduction targets of SB 32, and AB 32. There would be a significant and unavoidable impact relative to this topic.

Furthermore, according to the GPEIR (City of San Jacinto, 2022), the GP would not satisfy the GHG reduction requirements established by SB 32 and AB 32; however, the GHG reduction targets developed for the GP were determined consistent with the GHG reduction targets provided in the CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, which were developed by the CARB to ensure compliance with AB 32, SB 32, and consistent with Executive Order S-03-05. These laws established a statewide reduction in GHG emissions to 15% below 1990 levels by 2020 (under AB 32), 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 (under SB 32), and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (under AB 32 and consistent with Executive Order S-03-05).

The GP was determined not to conflict with the implementation of the CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan; however, the buildout of the GP was found to not meet the 2030 or 2050 community emissions target.

While the GP policies and actions would further assist the City in reducing GHG emissions, the associated reduction of GHG emissions were determined not to be quantifiable. Because of this, the City found it could not state with certainty whether implementation of the GP would meet the 2030 and 2050 community emissions targets. Therefore, the City of San Jacinto’s certified GPEIR determined a significant and unavoidable impact would result and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted.

To assess the GP’s potential to conflict with the 2020 RTP/SCS, the GPEIR also analyzed the proposed GP’s land use assumptions for consistency with those utilized by SCAG in its SCS. Generally, projects are considered consistent with the provisions and general policies of applicable City and regional land use plans and regulations, such as SCAG’s RTP/SCS, if they are compatible with the general intent of

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.8-9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
the plans and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals. The GPEIR found that the GP would be consistent with the GHG reduction-related actions and strategies contained in the 2020 RTP/SCS.

As shown in Table 4.8-2 above, the project would generate 6,826 metric tons per year of CO2e, which was determined to be consistent with the GPEIR and not considered peculiar to this project.

Implementation of the project would create annual GHG emissions (6,826 MTCO2e) above the SCAQMD Working Group’s draft annual GHG emissions threshold of 3,500 MTCO2e for residential uses; however, this is not peculiar to the project based on the relatively greater number of units (424) compared to other similar residential projects of a smaller size subject to the same threshold. In addition, because the City of San Jacinto GPEIR adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the GP’s consistency with requirements established by SB 32 and AB 32, and with meeting the 2030 and 2050 reduction targets, the proposed construction of 424 residential units, which is consistent with the project site’s land use and zoning designations, would also be consistent with the GP and GPEIR. Therefore, the project’s impacts related to consistency with applicable GHG emissions reduction plans and policies would not be considered peculiar. The Project would also be subject to GP Action RM-4n, Action RM-4o, Action RM-5e, and Action RM 7a, which would help reduce GHG emissions. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Refer to the GP Goals, Policies, and Actions cited above in this section.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.8-10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This page was intentionally left blank.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.9-1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the GPEIR
No 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 of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed hazards and hazardous materials impacts on pages 5.9-15 through 5.9-42. The GPEIR determined implementation of the GP 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 onsite 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

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.9-2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
(e.g., police and fire) would respond. Further, all future projects allowed under the GP 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 GP also includes policies and actions to address potential impacts associated with hazardous materials among other issues. Overall, the GPEIR 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 GP would be less than significant.

The GPEIR determined future development under the GP 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 GPEIR also determined that future development accommodated through the GP 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 GP would be reviewed at the project-level to determine whether any development sites are listed on a hazardous materials site. The GPEIR determined that compliance with GP goals, policies, and actions, and existing regulations would reduce potential impacts involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment as a result of onsite contamination to a less than significant level. The GPEIR also determined that long-term operation activities associated with future new development under the GP 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 GPEIR 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 GPEIR determined future development under the GP 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 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 GPEIR determined that implementation of the safety procedures and regulations mandated by applicable federal, State, and local laws and the GP 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 GP would be less than significant.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.9-3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The GPEIR discusses that future development associated with implementation of the GP 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 GPEIR determined that compliance with GP goals, policies, and actions, and existing regulations would reduce potential impacts involving the hazardous materials sites.

The GPEIR determined implementation of the GP 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 (Development Code Chapter 17.630), future development projects under the GP 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 GPEIR determined impacts associated with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans would be less than significant.

Future development allowed under the GP 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 GPEIR determined through compliance with existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations related to wildland fire hazards and implementation of the GP 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 ANALYSIS
The following analysis is based on the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Hillman Consulting in December 2020 and is presented in Appendix E. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.9- 15 through 5.9-21 and was 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 GP implementation would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 4.5, Chapter 11, Article 3, classifies hazardous materials into the following four (4) categories based on their properties:
 Toxic (causes human health effects),
 Ignitable (has the ability to burn),

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.9-4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Corrosive (causes severe burns or damage to materials), and  Reactive (causes explosions or generates toxic gases).

Hazardous materials have been and are commonly used in commercial, agricultural and industrial applications as well as in residential areas to a limited extent. Hazardous wastes are hazardous materials that no longer have practical use, such as substances that have been discarded, discharged, spilled, contaminated, or are being stored prior to proper disposal. The health impacts of hazardous materials exposure are based on the frequency of exposure, the exposure pathway, and individual susceptibility.

The long-term operation of the proposed project would not be expected to involve the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials in quantities or conditions that would pose a hazard to public health and safety or the environment. The operation of the proposed project could involve the use of cleaning products and an occasional use of pesticide activities and herbicides for landscape maintenance. The materials would be common for general maintenance and would not be stored in large quantities that pose a health hazard to the public. Potential impacts would not be peculiar to the project.

The construction operations associated with the proposed project would involve the handling of incidental amounts of hazardous substances, such as solvents, fuels, and oil. To avoid public exposure to hazardous materials, the proposed project would be required to comply with local, state, and federal laws and regulations regarding the handling and storage of hazardous materials. With compliance with local, state, and federal hazardous material laws and regulations and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), potential hazardous impacts to the public would not be peculiar to the project.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Mobility Policies 1.4. Public Safety Goals PS-4 and PS-5. Public Safety Policies 4.1 through 4.8, 5.1 through 5.9, and 5.11 through 5.13. Public Safety Actions 4a through 4h, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5f, and 5g. Resource Management Policies 6.1 and 10.3.

Resource Management Actions 6c, 10a, and 10c.
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?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.9- 21 through 5.9-28 and was determined that compliance with existing regulations related to ACM and lead-based paint would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level; compliance with GP goals, policies, and actions, and existing regulations would reduce potential impacts involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment as a result of onsite contamination to a less than significant level; and 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 to less than significant.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.9-5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following analysis is based on the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the project site by Hillman Consulting in December 2020 which incorporates by reference the Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed project by Centec Engineering Environmental Assessments and Solutions in April 2017. The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to describe the current conditions of the project site and surrounding area as observed and to obtain information which would indicate the likelihood of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the project site.

HISTORIC USE OF PROPERTY
A history of the project site was ascertained through historical aerial photographs, USGS Topographic Maps, and Riverside County information. Historically, the property was likely under dry-type or low field crop agriculture prior to 1966 through the present, with no structural development known. The property has no address, so no data requests could be made from any typical agencies. No unusual observations or apparent environmental concerns were evident on any of the aerial photographs reviewed.

SITE RECONNAISSANCE OBSERVATIONS
The site reconnaissance consisted of visual and/or physical observations of the property and improvements, adjoining properties as viewed from the property boundaries and the surrounding area based on visual observations from adjoining public thoroughfares. Building exteriors were observed at ground level, unless otherwise indicated. Where applicable, representative areas of building interiors were accessed and observed to the extent they were made safely accessible with the cooperation of the site escort. No visual observations indicative of a potential environmental concern were noted on the project site or on adjoining properties.

SOIL SAMPLING
The Phase I ESA prepared by Centec included soil sampling and laboratory analysis. Based on the longtime prior agricultural use of the property and the concern over the possible persistent presence of pesticides, especially with a possible future residential use of the site, Centec conducted soil sampling as part of the Phase I ESA. Centec collected shallow soil samples at 9-18 inches below ground surface at 96 locations in a grid pattern across the site. The samples were composited into 24 samples that were submitted to a state-certified laboratory for analysis of organochlorine pesticides and arsenic. The only pesticides detected were dieldrin, which was detected at trace concentrations (2.5-

8.1 parts per billion) in 18 of the samples, DDE (6.9-250 ppb) in 22 of the samples, and DDT (2.5-4.0 ppb) in 5 of the samples. These concentrations are well below the current regulatory “screening levels” of 34 ppb for dieldrin, 2,000 ppb for DDE, and 1,900 for DDT established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for a residential site, and therefore are not considered to be of concern. Arsenic was consistently detected at low concentrations of 1.17-3.22 parts per million (ppm) in the 24 samples, which does exceed the most conservative residential “screening level” of 0.68 ppm but is also well within the normal background concentration of 12 ppm for southern California. Therefore, these concentrations are also not considered to be of concern. No adjacent or nearby properties or known sources of contamination in the vicinity are deemed likely to present an immediate risk of impairment to the project site. Overall, the research and inspections completed do not suggest a likelihood that Recognized Environmental Conditions are associated with the project site.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.9-6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA BASE SEARCHES
The purpose of the environmental data base searches is to evaluate to the extent possible whether prior activities, processes, operations, or actions on the project site, adjoining properties, and nearby locations have the potential to adversely impact the environmental integrity of the site, are suspected sources of recognized environmental conditions (REC) or if RECs are present on the site. A recognized environmental condition refers to the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property due to release to the environment under conditions indicative of a release to the environment or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD): Records for the project site address were sought on the database. The AQMD database had a listing for RGR Farming Co, located at “De Anza at Potter Road,” San Jacinto, CA 92582. There was no equipment listed and there were no Notices of Violation or Notices to Comply.

California State Department of Health Services, Toxic Substance Control Division: No records for the project site were requested because there is no address for the project site.

State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources: A review of oil and gas well maps revealed no oil and gas wells on the project site.

Known Sources of Offsite Contamination
The database report identified one (1) known source of contamination within a one-quarter mile radius of the project site. It is a former open air market that operated in the past on a parcel 600-700 feet to the southeast (Map ID#2 and A5) where soil contamination was detected in 1990 when fuel USTs were removed. The impacted soils were excavated, and the case was closed in 1991. The property was redeveloped into a single-family residential area. There is one (1) other listed site involving leaking USTs on a former dairy farm beyond 0.5 miles to the west from the project site (#6). Its leakage impacted soil only and has been remediated and “closed” since 2001. Three proposed school sites previously used for agriculture, 0.5 to 1.0 miles away were remediated for soil toxicity and closed.

These sites were deemed to require no further actions and were dropped from consideration. All these sites are too distant and lack adequate significance to present a risk of impairment to the project site.

There are no other NPL “Superfund” sites, CERCLIS cases, hazardous waste landfills, or other significant sources of contamination identified within the project area.

VAPOR ENCROACHMENT SCREENING
The purpose of a Vapor Encroachment Screen (VES) is to identify, to the extent feasible, if a Vapor Encroachment Condition (VEC) exists at the site. A VES encroachment condition (VEC) indicates the presence or likely presence of vapors from chemicals of concern (COC) in the subsurface of a property caused by the release of vapors on or near the property. A “Tier 1” vapor encroachment screening was conducted based on a review of information obtained during the Phase I assessment, including the environmental database, visual observations of adjacent and nearby properties, geology, groundwater depth and flow direction, interviews of knowledgeable persons, and known sources of contamination in the nearby vicinity to evaluate the likelihood of a VEC in connection with the project site. This information indicates there are no known active sources of contamination within 500 feet of the project site, or large-quantity generators of potential COC within 200 feet. Based on the guidelines in

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.9-7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
ASTM and the results of this Tier 1 screening, it appears reasonable to conclude that a VEC can be ruled out for the project site.

PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT RESULTS
The Phase 1 ESA revealed no evidence of current Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) associated with the project site. There is a potential Historical Recognized Environmental Condition because the property had been in agricultural use prior to 1966 until the present. Representative soil sampling across the site was conducted which indicated no elevated concentrations of pesticides or arsenic detected. Therefore, this issue is not a recognized environmental condition, and no further actions appear necessary at thistime. The potential impact for the project to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would not be peculiar to the project.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Mobility Policies 1.4. Mobility Policies

1.4. Public Safety Goals PS-4 and PS-5. Public Safety Policies 4.1 through 4.6, 4.8, 5.1 through 5.9, and

5.11 through 5.13. Public Safety Actions 4a through 4h, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5f, and 5g. Resource Management Policies 6.1 and 10.3 Resource Management Actions 6c, 10a, and 10c. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.9- 28 through 5.9-31 and was determined that implementation of the safety procedures and regulations mandated by applicable federal, State, and local laws and the GP 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 GP implementation would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school.

The nearest school sites to the project site would be Monte Vista Middle School located at 425 North Lyon Street (approximately 0.6 miles from the project site) and San Jacinto High School located at 500 Idyllwild Avenue (approximately 0.21 miles from the project site). The operation of the proposed project would not emit any hazardous emissions. The operation of the proposed project could involve the use of cleaning products and occasional use of pesticide activities and herbicides for landscape maintenance. The materials would be common for general maintenance and would not be stored in large quantities that pose a health hazard to the public. Construction operations and construction equipment staging areas would be confined to the project site and would be required to comply with federal and state laws regarding the handling of hazardous materials. There would be no offsite handling of hazardous materials near the school sites that would pose health risks to the public. With compliance with federal and state laws regarding the handling of hazardous materials, potential hazardous emission impacts would not be peculiar to the project. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.9-8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Mobility Policies 1.4. Public Safety Goal PS-4. Public Safety Policies 4.1 through 4.6, and 4.8. Public Safety Actions 4a through 4h. Resource Management Policies 10.3. Resource Management Actions 10a and 10c. 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 Impact: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.9-32 through 5.9-33 and was determined that compliance with GP goals, policies, and actions, and existing regulations would reduce potential impacts involving the hazardous materials sites to less than significant.

The project would not 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 not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. A Phase I ESA prepared for the project site did not identify any Recognized Environmental Condition, Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions, and/or Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions. No evidence of a recognized environmental condition was identified on the project site. Additionally, review of federal, state and local environmental databases did not identify any listed hazardous sites on the project site or within vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would not be exposed to health hazards since it is not associated with being located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: None are required. 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?
No Impact: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on page 5.9-34 and was determined that, because the GP is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public use airport, impacts with regard to safety hazards to people residing or working in the GP area would be less than significant.

The project would not be within two (2) miles of a public airport or public use airport, that would result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The closest airport to the project site would be Hemet-Ryan Airport, located at 4710 West Stetson Avenue, approximately five (5) miles from the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in safety hazards or excessive noise impacts within the project area. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: None are required. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.9- 34 through 5.9-38 and was determined that, as part of the site plan and design review process

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.9-9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
(Development Code 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, impacts associated with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans would be less than significant.

The project would not Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. According to the GP Public Safety Element and EIR, the City of San Jacinto has an Emergency Preparedness Plan (or “Emergency Operations Plan” (EOP)) whose purpose is to respond to emergency situations with a coordinated system of emergency service providers and facilities (City 2022). The Emergency Preparedness Plan identifies resources available for emergency response and establishes/coordinates action plans for specific emergency situations and disasters including earthquakes, fires, major rail and roadway accidents, flooding, hazardous materials incidents, and civil disturbance.

The project proposes residential uses consistent with the designated land use in the GP. No unusual circumstances are present or proposed for permanent occupation of the project site that are anticipated to conflict with the City’s Emergency Preparedness Plan. In the event an evacuation is required, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department would identify and direct traffic to designated emergency evacuation routes. Residents of the project would be expected to comply with the City’s emergency response plans which would avoid conflicts with implementation of the City’s Emergency Preparedness Plan. No long-term impacts are anticipated.

Temporary activities associated with construction of the project could result in temporary partial lane closures. The temporary lane closures would be for a short period of time and would be implemented in accordance with recommendations provided in the California Temporary Traffic Control Handbook to ensure emergency access would be maintained at all times. Additionally, the construction activities for the project would be coordinated with the City of San Jacinto, which would identify traffic controls needed in order to maintain emergency response plans. With compliance with the City Traffic Control requirements, potential impacts regarding conflicts with emergency response plans would not be peculiar. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Public Safety Goals PS-4 and PS-5. Public Safety Policies 4.7, 5.1 through 5.9, and 5.11 through 5.13. Public Safety Actions 2a, 5a through 5c, 5f, and 5g. Resource Management Policies 6.1. Resource Management Actions 6c. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.9- 38 through 5.9-42 and was determined that through compliance with existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations related to wildland fire hazards and implementation of the GP goals, policies, and actions, impacts regarding the exposure of people or structures to significant loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. According to the City of

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.9-10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
San Jacinto GP Safety Element, the undeveloped hillsides located in both the westernmost and easternmost portions of the Planning Area are High Fire Hazard Areas, which does not include the project site. Additionally, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection identifies that the project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Zone and would not be subject to significant wildland fire impacts. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Public Safety Goal PS-2. Public Safety Policies 2.1 through 2.3 and 2.5 through 2.13. Public Safety Actions 2a through 2d. Resource Management Policies 6.1 and 6.2. Resource Management Actions 6f.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.10-1 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:

Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
Project Site
Significant
Impact due
to New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the GPEIR
No 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:
1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation onor offsite? 2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite?
3) 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?
4) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed impacts related to hydrology and water quality on pages 5.10-16 through 5.10-

48. The GPEIR determined grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with future construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Additionally, the GPEIR 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 GPEIR states, future projects carried out under the GP 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

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.10-2 Hydrology and Water Quality
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 Municipal Code 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 GP Public Safety Element and Resource Management Element includes goals, policies, and actions to address water quality associated with development. Overall, the GPEIR determined implementation of the GP policies and actions, implementation of the Municipal Code 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 GP would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

The GPEIR 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 GPEIR determined implementation and future buildout of the GP 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 GPEIR determined there are adequate water supplies (including groundwater) to serve the projected buildout demand of the GP.

Therefore, impacts related to groundwater recharge would be less than significant.

The GP 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 GPEIR determined implementation and buildout of the GP could increase the area of impervious surfaces in the City and/or result in alteration of existing drainage patterns. However, through implementation of the GP 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 GPEIR determined future development under the GP 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 onsite or offsite of a project. However, through implementation of the GP 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 GPEIR 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, with implementation of GP goals, policies, and implementation and compliance with existing regulations, the GP would not impede or redirect flood flows; impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

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

However, the EIR determined with implementation of GP goals, policies, and implementation and compliance with existing regulations, impacts associated with the risk of pollutants from seiches and

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.10-3 Hydrology and Water Quality
flooding that may result from adoption and implementation of the GP would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

The GPEIR also notes that the City is approximately 41 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean; therefore, risk of tsunami is not likely. The GPEIR also determined that through implementation of existing regulations and the GP policies and actions, implementation of the GP would not conflict or obstruct a water quality control plan.

Further, the GP would not conflict with implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan because future development projects accommodated by the GP 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 ANALYSIS
The following analysis is based on a Preliminary Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (January 2022) and the Preliminary Hydrology Study (May 2022) prepared by Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering and presented in Appendices F1 and F2, respectively.

Existing Setting

SURFACE WATER BODIES
The project site is located in the Santa Ana River Watershed and the San Jacinto River Sub-Watershed.

The 732 square mile San Jacinto River Basin is located in Riverside County about 80 miles southeast of Los Angeles. It is a tributary to the Santa Ana River through Lake Elsinore and Temescal Wash.

The primary surface water is the San Jacinto River. The San Jacinto River is 42 miles long with headwaters in the Santa Rosa and the San Jacinto Mountains. The river is formed at the west base of the San Jacinto Mountains by the confluence of its north and south forks. The south fork flows from near Santa Rosa Summit, through Pine Meadow and Garner Valley to Lake Hemet. Downstream of Lake Hemet, the south fork joins the north fork east of the town of Valle Vista near Highway 74. The main stem of the San Jacinto River continues northwest until it discharges into Mystic Lake. Overflow from the river then flows southwest, passing under Ramona Expressway and Interstate 215, to Canyon Lake.

Downstream of Canyon Lake, the river continues flowing roughly west-southwest through the Temescal Mountains until it drains into Lake Elsinore. During heavy rainfall, Lake Elsinore overflows into Temescal Creek, which flows northwest to the Santa Ana River in the City of Corona.

GROUNDWATER
The project site overlies the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Eastern Municipal Water District. The San Jacinto Groundwater Basin underlies the cities of San Jacinto, Perris, Moreno, and Menifee Valleys in western Riverside County. The basin is bounded by the San Jacinto Mountains on the east, the San Timoteo Badlands on the northeast, the Box Mountains on the north, the Santa Rosa Hills, and Bell Mountain on the south, and unnamed hills on the west. The groundwater basin management area encompasses approximately 90 square miles. Natural recharge to the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin is primarily from percolation of flow in the San Jacinto River and its tributary streams. The groundwater basin has approximately 1950 wells, of which approximately 61 are water supply wells.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.10-4 Hydrology and Water Quality

PROJECT SITE DRAINAGE
The project site slopes downward to the northwest at an approximate 2% gradient with surface drainage directed into the Bautista Wash. The project would be improved with onsite drainage facilities that would convey surface water flows to two (2) onsite detention/infiltration basins. The basins would serve as water quality management basins as well as for stormwater management.

Existing Watershed Setting
The project site is located within the Santa Ana River Watershed, which is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and regulated under the Santa Ana River Water Quality Control Basin Plan (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses for surface water and within the Santa Ana River Watershed, which includes both quantitative and narrative criteria for a range of water quality constituents applicable to certain receiving water bodies to protect beneficial uses. The beneficial uses in the Basin Plan are described in Table 4.10-1, Beneficial Use Descriptions.

Table 4.10-1
Beneficial Use Descriptions
Abbreviation Beneficial Use
GWR Groundwater Recharge waters are used for natural or artificial recharge of groundwater for purposes that may include, but are not limited to, future extraction, maintaining water quality or halting saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers.

REC 1 Water Contact Recreation waters are used for recreational activities involving body contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses may include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, whitewater activities, fishing, and use of natural hot springs.

REC 2 Non-Contact Water Recreation waters are used for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but not normally body contact with water where ingestion of water would be reasonably possible. These uses may include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, tide pool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing and aesthetic enjoyment in-conjunction with the above activities.

WARM Warm waters support warm water ecosystems that may include, but are not limited to, preservation and enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, and wildlife, including invertebrates.

AQUA Uses of water for agriculture or mariculture operations including, but not limited to propagation, cultivation, maintenance, or harvesting of aquatic plants and animals for human consumption or bait purposes.

COLD Cold Freshwater habitat waters support cold water ecosystems.

FRSH Uses of water for natural or artificial maintenance of surface water quantity or quality.

WILD Wildlife Habitat waters support wildlife habitats that may include, but are not limited to, the preservation and enhancement of vegetation and prey species used by waterfowl and other wildlife.

RARE Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species (RARE) waters support habitats necessary for the survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species designated under state or federal law as rare, threatened, or endangered.

MUN Municipal and Domestic Supply waters are used for community, military, municipal or individual water supply systems. These uses may include, but are not limited to, drinking water supply.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.10-5 Hydrology and Water Quality
Abbreviation Beneficial Use
AGR Agricultural Supply waters are used for farming, horticulture, or ranching. These uses may include, but are not limited to, irrigation, stock watering, and support of vegetation for range grazing.

IND Industrial Service Supply waters are used for industrial activities that do not depend primarily on water quality. These uses may include, but are not limited to, mining, cooling water supply, hydraulic conveyance, gravel washing, fire protection and oil well depressurization.

PROC Industrial Process Supply waters are used for industrial activities that depend primarily on water quality. These uses may include, but are not limited to, process water supply and all uses of water related to product manufacture or food preparation.

POW Hydropower Generation waters are used for hydroelectric power generation.

Source: California Water Boards, Colorado River Basin Plan; updated June 2019.

BENEFICIAL USES
The primary receiving downstream water bodies from the project site would be Reach 4 San Jacinto River, Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore. Table 4.10-2, Study Area Water Body Beneficial Uses, identifies the Basin Plan beneficial uses for the San Jacinto River, Lake Elsinore, and Canyon Lake.

Table 4.10-2
Study Area Water Body Beneficial Uses
Beneficial Use San Jacinto River
Reach 1
San Jacinto River
Reach 4 Lake Elsinore Canyon Lake
Municipal X NL NL X
Groundwater X X NL X
Agriculture X X NL X
Industrial NL NL NL NL
Industrial Processes NL NL NL NL
Recreation 1 X X X X
Recreation 2 X X X X
Warm Waters X X X X
Wild Waters X X X X
Rare Waters NL NL NL NL
Cold Water NL NL X NL
Abbreviations: NL- Not Listed, X- Present or Potential Use, I- Intermittent Beneficial Use Source: Santa Ana River Basin Plan.

SECTION 303(D) WATER BODIES
Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is required to develop a list of impaired water bodies. Each of the individual Regional Water Quality Control Boards are responsible for establishing priority rankings and developing action plans, referred to as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to improve water quality of water bodies included in the 303(d) list. A list of the study area receiving water bodies that have been listed as 303(d) impaired water bodies is shown in Table 4.10-3, 303(d) Listed Impaired Water Bodies.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.10-6 Hydrology and Water Quality
Table 4.10-3
303(d) Listed Impaired Water Bodies
Water Body Impairment Proximity to Rare Beneficial Use
San Jacinto River 1 None No Rare Water Bodies in Proximity to Site San Jacinto River 4 None No Rare Water Bodies in Proximity to Site Canyon Lake Pathogens, Nutrients No Rare Water Bodies in Proximity to Site Lake Elsinore PCB’s, Nutrients, Organic Enrichment,
Dissolved Oxygen, Sediment Toxicity,
Unknown Toxicity
No Rare Water Bodies in Proximity to Site

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act established the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to control water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into Waters of the United States. In the State of California, the EPA has authorized the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to be the permitting authority to implement the NPDES program. The SWRCB issues two (2) baseline general permits, one (1) for industrial discharges and one (1) for construction activities (General Construction Permit).

Additionally, the NPDES Program includes the long-term regulation of storm water discharges from medium and large cities. On January 29, 2010, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a fourth-term area wide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit (MS4 Permit) to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (the Principal Permittee), the County of Riverside and the Cities of Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Menifee, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto and Wildomar (Permittees). The Santa Ana MS4 Permit is for the portion of the Santa Ana River watershed located within Riverside County (Order Number R8-2010-0033, NPDES Permit Number CAS618033). The Permittees’ stormwater programs are designed to ensure compliance with this permit.

Short-Term Storm Water Management
Storm water discharges from construction sites with a disturbed area of one (1) or more acres are required to either obtain individual NPDES permits for storm water discharges or be covered by a General Construction Permit. Coverage under the General Construction Permit requires filing a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board and preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Each applicant under the General Construction Permit must ensure that a SWPPP would be prepared prior to grading and implemented during construction. The primary objective of the SWPPP is to identify, construct, implement, and maintain Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate pollutants in storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges from the construction site during construction. Best Management Practices (BMPs) include programs, technologies, processes, practices, and devices that control, prevent, remove, or reduce pollution.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.10-7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Long-Term Storm Water Management
The stormwater management regulatory requirements for the project site include water quality requirements provided in the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and the City of San Jacinto Municipal Ordinance Chapter 13.44 Stormwater Management. The purpose of the Stormwater Ordinance is to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable, regulating illicit connections and discharges to the storm drain system; and regulating non-stormwater discharges to the storm drain system. The Stormwater Ordinance requires new development or redevelopment projects to control stormwater runoff to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. The use of BMPs, green infrastructure and low impact development techniques is recommended to control stormwater runoff at the source and more closely approximate pre-development runoff conditions. The BMPs may, among other things, require new developments or redevelopments to do any of the following:
 Increase permeable areas, by leaving highly porous soil and low -lying areas undisturbed; by incorporating landscaping and open space into the project design; by using porous materials for or near driveways and walkways; and by incorporating detention ponds and infiltration pits into the project design.
 Direct runoff to permeable areas, by orienting it away from impermeable areas to swales, berms, green strip filters, gravel beds, and French drains; by installing rain gutters oriented towards permeable areas; by modifying the grade of the property to divert flow to permeable areas and minimize the amount of stormwater runoff leaving the property; and by designing curbs, berms or other structures such that they do not isolate permeable or landscaped areas.
 Maximize stormwater storage for reuse, by using retention structures, subsurface areas, cisterns, or other structures to store stormwater runoff for reuse or slow release.

FLOOD MANAGEMENT
According to the City of San Jacinto GPEIR, Figure 5.10-4, FEMA Flood Map, the project site is located within the 100-Year Flood Zone. However, as shown in Figure 4.10-1, National Flood Hazard Map, a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), with reference number 21-09-1682P, was processed through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to revise the flood boundary. The LOMR became effective on November 9, 2022. LOMRs are generally based on the implementation of physical measures that affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source and thus result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodway, the effective base flood elevations, or a special flood hazard area. Based on the most current mapping of the project site, the project would be located within Zone X, Area With Reduced Flooding Due to Levee. The existing levee is located adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site as also shown in Figure 4.10-1.

PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.10- 16 through 5.10-19. The GPEIR determined that through implementation of the GP policies and actions, implementation of the Municipal Code requirements, compliance with mandatory federal and

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.10-8 Hydrology and Water Quality
State regulations, and compliance with the existing regulations for the San Jacinto River Watershed, future development projects associated with implementation of the GP would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. The following analysis evaluates if the project would conflict with beneficial uses or further impair any listed 303(d) Impaired Water Bodies established in the Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan.

BENEFICIAL USES
The project site is expected to generate surface water runoff pollutants associated with roads, sidewalks, driveways and landscaping. Expected pollutants of concern would include bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, sediments, trash and debris, oil, and grease. During construction, there would be the potential that degraded surface water runoff generated from the construction site could be conveyed into local and regional drainage facilities. Depending on the constituents in the surface water, the water quality of the project area surface water bodies could be reduced, which could conflict with beneficial uses established for the applicable surface water bodies. The proposed project would disturb more than one (1) acre of area and would, therefore, be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State General Construction Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. In accordance with the State General Construction Permit, the project applicant would be required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Storm Water Report Tracking System and obtain a waste discharger identification number from the State Water Resources Control Board.

Additionally, the General Construction Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize degraded surface water runoff impacts. Such measures would include a site map that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, parking areas, roadways, storm drain collection and discharge points before and after construction. Additionally, structural BMP placement would include use of sandbags or waddles near drainages, use of rumble racks or wheel washers or other measures to avoid sediment transport. Compliance with the NPDES short-term regulatory requirements would reduce potential short-term construction related impacts to water quality. Potential impacts would not be peculiar to the project.

The long-term operation of the proposed project would generate surface water runoff that could contain pollutants that could conflict with applicable surface water beneficial uses. The proposed project would be regulated under NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permits issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and would be required to comply with the City of San Jacinto Municipal Code Section 13.44 Stormwater Management Ordinance to reduce the amounts of impervious areas and capture and treat or infiltrate stormwater runoff. The project would be required to prepare a WQMP in accordance with the requirements of the non-point source NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements. The project proposes a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that include measures to treat onsite low flows in an onsite bioretention basin. Additionally, non-structural, and structural BMPs would be implemented to maintain water quality. Non-structural BMPs could include education of residents, common area landscape management, litter control, catch basin inspection, and street sweeping. Structural BMPs could include storm drain system stenciling, design outdoor hazardous material storage areas to reduce pollutant introduction, and design trash enclosures to reduce pollutant introduction. Compliance with WQMP non-structural and structural and treatment

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.10-9 Hydrology and Water Quality
control measures would reduce potential long-term operational stormwater impacts to water quality.

Potential impacts would not be peculiar to the project.

SECTION 303(d) IMPAIRED WATER BODIES
It is unlikely that the construction and operation of the proposed project would generate elevated levels of pathogens, nutrients, PCB’s, organic enrichment, dissolved oxygen, sediment toxicity, or unknown toxicity water impairments identified for the downstream water bodies. During construction, the project would be required to implement a SWPPP in accordance with State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Permit to maintain water quality. Additionally, non-structural, structural and treatment control measures would be implemented in accordance with the project’s Water Quality Management Plan requirements to maintain long-term water quality. Compliance with the General Construction Permit requirements in conjunction with the implementation of the project’s WQMP would avoid further impairment to downstream impaired water bodies. Potential impacts would not be peculiar to the project.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Public Safety Policies 3.7. Public Safety Actions 1g and 3b. Resource Management Goal RM-2. Resource Management Policies 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, and 2.6. Resource Management Actions 1f, 2a, 2b, 2g, 2h, 9a, and 9e.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 4.10-1
Na onal Flood Hazard Map
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); October 30, 2023.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 544
Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.10-11 Hydrology and 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?
No Impact: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.10-20 through 5.10-23 and was determined that implementation of the GP policies, combined with continued management of the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin, would further ensure that future development anticipated by the GP would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The project site is not located on an active groundwater recharge basin and the proposed project does involve the construction of any ground water wells that would extract groundwater. The proposed project would have no activities that would substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Potential impacts would not be peculiar to the project. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Public Safety Policies 3.7. Resource Management Goal RM-2. Resource Management Policies 1.1, 2.1 through 2.5, and 2.7. Resource Management Actions 2c, 2d, 2f, 9a, 9b, and 9e.
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:
1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.10-24 through 5.10-28 and was determined that through implementation of the GP 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.

Implementation of the proposed project could result in onsite erosion and offsite sediment transport During earthwork activities, there would be the potential that uncovered soils on the project site could be exposed to water erosion and/or wind erosion impacts. Additionally, there would be the potential that construction vehicles and construction equipment could transport sediment onto local streets and into local drainage systems. The proposed project would disturb more than one (1) acre of area and would be required to obtain a General Construction Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. The General Construction Permit would require preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to avoid erosion and sediment transfer impacts. With obtaining coverage under a General Construction Permit issued from the State Water Resources Control Board, filing of a Notice of Intent with the State Water Resources Control Board and preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) potential erosion and siltation impacts would not be peculiar to the project. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist
November 2024 4.10-12 Hydrology and Water Quality
because it would not create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Public Safety Policies 3.1, and 3.6 through 3.12. Public Safety Actions 1g, 3b, and 3f. Resource Management Policies 2.1, 2.4, and

2.5. Resource Management Actions 1f, 2a, and 2b.
2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.10-24 through 5.10-28 and was determined that through implementation of the GP goals, policies, and actions and existing federal, State, and local regulations discussed above, runoff would not exceed the capacity of drainage systems or cause flooding impacts from changes to the existing drainage patterns and increased impervious surfaces. Impacts would be less than significant.

San Jacinto City CouncilFebruary 4, 2025

San Jacinto City Council
February 4, 2025