San Jacinto City Council
February 4, 2025

Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite. The project site is currently vacant and 100% impervious. Implementation of the project would result in an increase in impervious area over the current condition, which would increase the rate of surface water generated from the site. As part of the improvements for the proposed project, a new storm drain would be constructed to route flows around and through the project site to a bioretention basin. According to the WQMP prepared for the proposed project, the proposed drainage system would be able to accommodate increased surface water flows generated from the project site. With implementation of the project WQMP, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite. 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 3.1, 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.
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?
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 provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of planned stormwater drainage facilities. Onsite drainage would be collected and treated and mitigated per current

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 546 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 4.10-13 Hydrology and Water Quality
City requirements. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with NPDES General Construction Permit requirements and Municipal Code regulations. With compliance with the project drainage plan, WQMP, Municipal Code regulations and NPDES General Construction Permit requirements, potential water 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 3.1, 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.
4) Impede or redirect flood flows?
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 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.

Implementation of the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows. 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 previously 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.

The drainage plan for the project is based on the post LOMR condition. As part of the improvements for the proposed project, a new storm drain would be constructed to route flows around and through the project site to a bioretention basin. The basin would have the capacity to retain the developed condition 10-year, 24-hour storm volume in accordance with Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District preliminary design criteria.

The basin is designed to discharge volume excess flows by way of a City standard pump station.

Any overflow discharge would be through an outlet structure at the northerly most corner of the basin. Emergency outlet flows would be directed to the existing storm drain system in De Anza Drive. With implementation of the project drainage plan, potential flood flow 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 3.1, 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.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 547 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 4.10-14 Hydrology and Water Quality
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.10- 28 through 5.10-32 and was determined that with implementation of GP goals, policies, and implementation and compliance with existing regulations, impacts associated with the risk of pollutants from seiches and flooding that may result from adoption and implementation of the GP would be less than significant.

The project would not be in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. According to the City of San Jacinto 2040 GPEIR the project site is not susceptible to flooding associated with dam failure, potential inundation from any stored water body or within a tsunami run up area that would increase the risk for the release of pollutants. Potential impacts associated with release of pollutants from a flood hazard 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: None are required. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.10- 32 through 5.10-36 and was determined that adoption and implementation of the GP would not conflict or obstruct a sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with beneficial uses established for receiving water bodies for the project, would not conflict with water quality objectives or further impair existing impaired water bodies. The proposed project would implement SWPPP, WQMP BMPs and would treat onsite low flows to protect beneficial uses for surface waters identified in the Santa Ana River Basin Plan.

In 2014, the California Legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), that empowers local agencies to sustainably manage groundwater resources. SGMA requires local agencies to form groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) for the high and medium priority basins.

GSAs develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) to avoid undesirable results and mitigate overdraft within 20 years. The project would receive water supplies from the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). EMWD has developed a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The purpose of this GSP is to define the groundwater conditions that will be used to ensure ongoing, long-term, sustainable management of the groundwater resources within the Plan Area. The GSP identifies potential constraints that could affect groundwater sustainability and potential actions to mitigate the effects. EMWD will evaluate the GSP at least every 5 years to monitor the health of the groundwater basin and if adaptive actions are needed to be implemented to maintain sustainability. At this time, adaptive management actions are not required to maintain sustainability because of rising groundwater levels and increased groundwater in storage over the past 30 years. The proposed project is consistent with the City of San

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 548 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 4.10-15 Hydrology and Water Quality
Jacinto GP and the water demands for the project are accounted for in the EMWD Urban Water Management Plan which includes available groundwater supplies. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Eastern Municipal Water District Groundwater Sustainability Plan. 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: Resource Management Goal RM-2.

Resource Management Policies 2.1 through 2.6. Resource Management Actions 1f, 2a, 2b, 2d through 2h, 9a, 9b, and 9e. Public Safety Policies 3.7. Public Safety Actions 1g and 3b.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 549 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 4.10-16 Hydrology and Water Quality
This page was intentionally left blank.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 550 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 4.11-1 Land Use and Planning

4.11 Land Use and Planning
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. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed land use and planning‐related impacts on pages 5.11-11 through 5.11-30. The GPEIR determined that the GP Land Use Map designates sites for a range of urban and rural developed uses as well as open space, but it does not include any new areas designated for urbanization or new roadways, infrastructure, or other features that would divide existing communities. The GP Land Use Element also includes policies and actions to support cohesive development that would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, the GPEIR determined that the GP would have a less than significant impact associated with the physical division of an established community. The GPEIR also determined that implementation of the GP would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect and impacts would be less than significant.

PROJECT ANALYSIS
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact: The GPEIR discussed land use and planning‐related impacts on pages 5.11-11 through

5.11-30. The GPEIR determined that the GP Land Use Map designates sites for a range of urban and rural developed uses as well as open space, but it does not include any new areas designated for urbanization or new roadways, infrastructure, or other features that would divide existing communities. The GP Land Use Element also includes policies and actions to support cohesive development that would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, the GPEIR determined that the GP would have a less than significant impact associated with the physical division of an established community. The GPEIR also determined that implementation of the GP would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect and impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. The project site is currently undeveloped and situated within a suburban setting that is in transition from agriculture lands to suburban land uses. The project site is surrounded by and/or near existing singlefamily residential land uses and would not result in any adverse land use compatibility impacts. The project would not divide an established community, would not redirect traffic through existing residential neighborhoods and would not introduce any physical barriers between the project site and the surrounding area. Additionally, the project would not require acquisition of private or public lands

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 551 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 4.11-2 Land Use and Planning
that would divide existing land uses. Therefore, no impacts would occur in regard to physically dividing an established community. 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) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on page 5.11-

13. The GPEIR determined that subsequent development and infrastructure projects would be required to be consistent with all applicable policies, standards, and regulations, including those land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted to mitigate environmental effects by the City as well as those adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over components of future development projects. Any potential environmental impact associated with conflicts with land use requirements would be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The relevant planning for the project would be the City of San Jacinto GP and Zoning/Development Code.

CITY OF SAN JACINTO GENERAL PLAN
The City of San Jacinto existing GP designates the project site as Low Density Residential (LDR). In accordance with the GP Land Use Element, the LDR designation is primarily for single-family detached residential uses and accessory buildings. The designation allows a maximum density of up to 7.0 dwelling units per net acre. The project proposes the development of 424 single-family residential lots on approximately 96 gross acres. The project would have an overall density of 4.42 du/acre. The project would be consistent with GP land uses planned for the project site.

The City of San Jacinto GP includes goals and policies to help guide the development of land uses in the City. A list of goals and policies from the City’s GP that are relevant to and consistent with the proposed project are provided in Table 4.11-1, General Plan Land Use Consistency.

Table 4.11-1
General Plan Land Use Consistency
General Plan Goal/Policy Project Consistency Evaluation Land Use Element
Goal LU-2: Managed Growth. A City that manages and directs growth so that the community and its neighborhoods are protected and enhanced.

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

Consistent: The project would include its fair share of improvements in accordance with City requirements.

Project fair share contributions are discussed in Section

4.17, Transportation.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 552 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 4.11-3 Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goal/Policy Project Consistency Evaluation Policy LU-2.2: Infill Development. Encourage new
development to occur in infill locations in a balanced
and efficient pattern that reduces sprawl, preserves
open space, and creates convenient connections to
other land uses and activity centers.

Consistent: Single-family detached land uses border the project site to the north, south, and east. The proposed project includes single-family detached dwellings which would be consistent with the existing single-family
detached dwellings adjacent to/east of the project site.

Goal LU-3: Land Use Compatibility. A community that promotes high-quality development and compatibility with surrounding land uses and major transportation corridors.

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.

Consistent: The proposed project is compatible with
surrounding uses. The project is consistent with the City of San Jacinto’s GP Low Density Residential (LDR) Land
Use Designation. The RL zoning of the property is
applied to areas appropriate for a range of detached
single-family residential dwellings on suburban parcels.

The project has been designed in an effort to enhance
and blend with the fabric of the residential community.

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

Consistent: The project site is currently vacant/
agricultural and 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 does not conflict with rail corridors or high-value roadways.

Goal LU-5: Community Character and Design. A visually attractive community that helps create a unique sense of place.

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

Consistent: The proposed project would be required to
comply with development standards and design
standards provided in the City of San Jacinto
Development Code. The proposed project was designed
to achieve quality community design by blending in with existing single-family residential neighborhoods.

Policy LU 5.4: Gathering Places. Encourage the provision of both formal and informal public gathering spaces
through pedestrian-oriented street design; sidewalk
furniture and pedestrian-oriented development; welldesigned, multi-use public spaces of different sizes including pocket parks, plazas, and monuments; and
community events.

Consistent: The proposed project includes a sports park with a jogging trail and connecting tot lot, and a linear park on the east side of the project. The proposed
project also includes enhanced paving, shade
structures, trail lighting, and picnic tables.

Economic Development Element
Policy ED-7.6: Monitor New Development. Monitor fiscal
implications of new development and consider
strategies that ensure new development adequately
and fairly mitigates impacts on City infrastructure and services costs.

Consistent: The proposed project mitigates impacts on
City infrastructure to less than significant. As discussed in Section 4.15, Public Services, coordination with local facilities transpired to ensure the project would not
impact facilities or operations.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 553 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 4.11-4 Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goal/Policy Project Consistency Evaluation Mobility Element
Goal M-1: Local Circulation System. A safe circulation system that meets the needs of existing and future land uses and users of all travel modes.

Policy M-1.1: Balanced Circulation System. Provide a
balanced circulation system that promotes the safe and
efficient movement of people and goods throughout the
City.

Consistent: Proposed roadways, sidewalks and trail
facilities would be designed and constructed to meet
City of San Jacinto roadway standards to maintain the
safe and efficient movement of people and goods.

Policy M-1.2: Access and Mobility. Strive to maintain
sufficient access and mobility for all modes of travel
and users of the roadway network.

Consistent: At locations where the project adds to a
forecast deficiency and there is no funding mechanism
in place, the project is responsible for a fair-share
payment. The project fair-share percentages are shown
in Table 4.17-5, Project Fair-Share with Project
Conditions.

Goal M-2: Regional Circulation System. A Circulation system that is integrated with the larger regional transportation system to support the economic well-being of the community.

Policy M-2.1: Regional Agency Coordination. Coordinate
with regional transportation agencies, including the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC),
and the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to implement
roadway improvements that encourage the safe and
efficient flow of traffic within and beyond the City— for example, State Route 79 (SR-79) and Mid County
Parkway.

Consistent: The project traffic study analysis examined 14 key study intersections that span over the following jurisdictions: City of San Jacinto, County of Riverside, City of Hemet and Caltrans. The proposed project would
be responsible for a fair-share payment to certain
roadway improvements as described in Section 4.17
Transportation.

Goal M-5: Parking. Parking supply that adequately and efficiently meets demand.

Policy M-5.1: Appropriate Parking Supply. Use the
development review process to plan for new
developments to provide appropriate vehicle parking
supply to meet demand.

Consistent: The proposed project would be required to
comply with the City of San Jacinto’s Development Code
Chapter 17.330 which provides off-street parking and
loading standards for detached single-family dwellings
to ensure the project would provide appropriate vehicle parking supply to meet demand.

Goal M-6: Transportation Management. Transportation management strategies that comply with the County Congestion Management Plan and regional and statewide greenhouse gas emissions targets.

Policy M-6.1: Vehicle Miles Traveled. Maintain vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) thresholds and Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) mitigation requirements
for the purpose of environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Consistent: The Traffic Impact Study Report prepared
for the project contains a vehicle mile traveled (VMT)
analysis. Based on the results of WRCOG VMT Screening
Tool, the proposed project’s TAZ VMT is quantified to be

29.0 which is less than the City of San Jacinto’s
Threshold of Significance of 33.6 VMT.

Policy M-6.4: New Development. Work with developers
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and minimize
congestion related to new development through
improvements to the circulation system and onsite
improvements that encourage non-vehicular modes of
travel.

Consistent: In accordance with the City of San Jacinto GP the project would dedicate 26 feet of right-way on the
project frontage along Lyon Avenue to construct Class I Multi-purpose trail and pedestrian sidewalk. The Class I Multi-Purpose Trail would be designed and constructed
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.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 554 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 4.11-5 Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goal/Policy Project Consistency Evaluation Goal M-7: Funding. A fiscally sound transportation system that utilizes a variety of financing methods.

Policy M-7.2: New Developments. Leverage programs
such as West Riverside Council of Government’s
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee to receive fair
share contributions from new developments towards
transportation network improvements.

Consistent: At locations where the project adds to a
forecast deficiency and there is no funding mechanism
in place, the project is responsible for a fair-share
payment. The project fair-share percentages are shown
in Table 4.17-5, Project Fair-Share with Project
Conditions. Warren Avenue at Ramona Expressway will
receive its funding source from a transportation uniform mitigation fee payment as well as Sanderson Avenue
(SR-79) at Ramona Expressway.

Public Safety Element
Goal PS-1: Seismic and Geologic Hazards. A community that is adequately prepared for natural hazards related to landslides, geologic instability, and seismic activity.

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

Consistent: 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, the proposed project would
not expose people or structures to potential adverse
effects of ground shaking.

Policy PS-1.5: Development. Require assessment and
mitigation of hazards related to liquefaction, landslides, and flooding for new development projects or City
improvement projects that are identified by the City as susceptible to these hazards.

Consistent: The project prepared a Geotechnical
Subsurface Evaluation Report which analyzed onsite
subsurface soil conditions. The project would comply
with design recommendations provided in the
geotechnical evaluation, California Uniform Building
Code Seismic Safety Standards, and implementation of
Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard
GEO-1.

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

Consistent: The project would be required to follow the City of San Jacinto’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.

Goal PS-2: Fire Safety. A City that is safe and adequately prepared for urban and wildfire emergencies.

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

Consistent: The project would receive fire protection
services from the Riverside County Fire Department.

The project would not require the expansion of fire
protection facilities or services. Further, the project would be designed in compliance with the California
Building Code, California Fire Code, and would be
reviewed by the Riverside County Fire Department to

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 555 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 4.11-6 Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goal/Policy Project Consistency Evaluation ensure it has been designed in compliance with fire
protection safety requirements.

Policy PS-2.2: Fire Protection Services. Reduce the risk of fire to the community by coordinating emergency
preparedness with the Riverside County Fire
Department (RCFD).

Consistent: Deputy Fire Marshal Adria Reinertson from
the Riverside County Fire Department evaluated the
project and determined that it would not have a
significant impact on the ability to provide emergency
services.

Goal PS-3: Flood Hazards. A community that is protected from flood hazards.

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

Consistent: The project would be required to adhere to
the latest building, site, and design codes in the
California Building Code and FEMA flood control
guidelines to avoid or minimize the risk of flooding
hazards in the community.

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

Consistent: The project site is currently vacant and 100% impervious. Implementation of the project would result
in an increase in impervious area over the current
condition, which would increase the rate of surface
water generated from the site. As part of the
improvements for the proposed project, a new storm
drain would be constructed to route flows around and
through the project site to a bioretention basin.

According to the WQMP prepared for the proposed
project, the proposed drainage system would be able to
accommodate increased surface water flows generated
from the project site.

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

Policy PS-4.6: Proposed Facilities. Require appropriate environmental analysis to be conducted for any
proposed hazardous waste materials treatment or
transfer, in accordance with environmental review
requirements.

Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, 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.

Goal PS-5: Emergency Operations. A community that is highly prepared and equipped to handle emergency situations, in order to minimize loss of life, injury, property damage, and disruption of vital services.

Policy PS-5.10: Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design. Ensure projects include design features that
promote public safety and reduce criminal activity.

Consistent: Through the City’s development review
process, Riverside County Sheriff Department would
review the project to identify defensible spaces to
promote public safety and reduce criminal activity.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 556 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 4.11-7 Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goal/Policy Project Consistency Evaluation Goal PS-6: Noise. A comfortable community environment that is free from excessive noise pollution.

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

Consistent: Section 4.13, Noise, evaluates the land use noise compatibility of the project and has determined
that operational noise impacts associated with the
project would not be peculiar.

Policy PS-6.7: Construction Noise. Require construction activities to reduce noise impacts on adjacent uses to
the criteria identified in Tables PS-3 and PS-4, or, if the criteria cannot be met, to the maximum extent feasible
complying with Chapter 8.40 of the San Jacinto
Municipal Code (Noise Control) and use best practices.

Construction activities outside of the permitted
construction hours identified in the San Jacinto
Municipal Code may be approved on a case-by-case
basis by the Community Development Director.

Consistent: Section 4.13, Noise, evaluates construction noise impacts generated by the proposed project and
has determined that the project would comply with the
City Municipal Code Noise Ordinance and that
temporary noise impacts would not be peculiar.

Goal PS-7: Climate Change and Resiliency Planning. A resilient, sustainable, and equitable community where risks to life, property, the economy, and the environment resulting from climate change, including extreme weather events, are minimized.

Policy PS-7.12: Extreme Heat Vulnerabilities. Require
that new developments, major remodels, and
redevelopments address urban heat island issues and
reduce urban heat island effects for the proposed
project site and adjacent properties.

Consistent: The project applicant has committed to
designing all homes to meet or exceed the 2022 Title 24 Part 6, energy efficiency standards, rules set by the
California Energy Commission.

Resource Management Element
Goal RM-1: Natural Resources. A community that conserves and protects its natural resources.

Policy RM-1.3: Biological Resource Protection. Preserve and enhance biological communities that contribute to
the region’s biodiversity, with a special focus on
sensitive, rare, or endangered plant and wildlife species in accordance with state and federal resource agency
requirements.

Consistent: A Biological Technical Report was prepared
for the project to ensure the perseverance and
enhancement of biological communities that contribute
to the region’s biodiversity. The project would be
required to comply with Uniformly Applied
Development Policies or Standards BIO-1a, BIO-1b, and
BIO-2.

Policy RM-1.6: Native Vegetation. Conserve existing
native vegetation where possible and integrate
regionally native plant species into development and
infrastructure projects where appropriate.

Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological
Resources; the project site does not support any
sensitive vegetation communities.

Goal RM-2: Water Resources. A community that protects and conserves limited water resources.

Policy RM-2.4: Natural Conditions. Encourage
development that avoids impacts to watershed areas,
wetlands, natural drainage channels, riparian areas, and creeks, retaining these resources in their natural
condition if feasible.

Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological
Resources; sensitive vegetation communities are
located offsite and would be avoided.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 557 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 4.11-8 Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goal/Policy Project Consistency Evaluation Goal RM-3: Heritage Resources. A community that celebrates and preserves its rich culture and historic assets.

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

Consistent. A Cultural Resource Report prepared for the project identified there were no recorded cultural
resources on the project site. 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 Archaeologists and Tribal Representative
during construction.

Policy RM-3.4: Tribal Consultation. Consult with Native American tribes that may be impacted by proposed
development, as necessary, and in accordance with
state, local, and tribal intergovernmental consultation requirements.

Consistent: The project is subject to the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52. The law requires lead agencies to initiate consultation with California Native American
Tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project. An NAHC Sacred
Lands File Search and Tribal contacts list was requested on December 7, 2021, (Appendix C). A negative Sacred
Lands File Search was received from the NAHC on
February 2, 2022.

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

Policy RM-4.3: GHG Emissions. Align the City’slocal GHG reduction targets with the statewide GHG reduction
targets of Assembly Bill 32 and align the City’s GHG
reduction goal with the statewide GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05.

Consistent: As discussed in the Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Section 4.8, implementation of the project
would create GHG emissions. 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 not be considered a significant
impact peculiar to this project. Therefore, impacts
related to consistency with AB 32 and EO S-03-05 would
not be considered a significant impact peculiar to this project.

Policy RM-4.8: Mitigation. Require the implementation
of relevant mitigation measures for all future
development upon identification of potential air quality impacts.

Consistent: Section 4.2, Air Quality, evaluates
construction and operational air quality impacts
generated from the project and has determined that
construction and operational regional and local air
quality impacts would not be peculiar.

Policy RM-4.9: Local Reduction Targets. The City of San Jacinto establishes the following per capita GHG
reduction targets, in order to meet the requirements
established by the state under AB 32 and SB 32,
consistent with the CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan:
 1.83 MTCO2e per service population (SP) by
2030; and
 0.62 MTCO2e per service population (SP) by
2050
Consistent: As discussed in the Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Section 4.8, implementation of the proposed
project would create GHG emissions. 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 service population
reduction targets, the proposed project construction of 424 residential units, which is consistent with the
project site’s land use and zoning designations, would

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 558 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 4.11-9 Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goal/Policy Project Consistency Evaluation not be considered a significant impact peculiar to this project.

The proposed project also incorporates the following
project design features, consistent with the GP goals:
 Project Design Feature 1: The project applicant shall provide pedestrian network improvements on the
project site, and that connects to the existing
pedestrian network in the vicinity of the project site.

The project applicant has committed to the
installation of sidewalks along all new streets as well as internal sidewalks to connect to the proposed park
areas and existing pedestrian pathways near Lyon
Avenue and Ranch View Lane as well as providing
connection points to the pedestrian network on the
west and south sides in order to allow pedestrian
connections to any future development that may
occur in these directions.
 Project Design Feature 2: The project applicant shall provide traffic calming measures on the project site
roadways in order to provide roadways that are more
conducive to walking and bicycling (including e‐bikes
and e-scooters). The project applicant has committed
to implementing traffic calming measures that
include stripping narrow lanes as well as providing
bulb outs at intersections and other traffic calming
measures on the project’s internal roadway system.
 Project Design Feature 3: The project applicant shall provide a bicycle pathway network on the project site
and that connects offsite. The project applicant has
committed to installing bicycle lanes along the
proposed extension of De Anza Drive through the
project site as well as providing a bicycle pathway
along the Casa Loma Siphon that would connect to
the existing bicycle pathway on the east side of the
project site.
 Project Design Feature 4: The project applicant shall encourage telecommuting. The project applicant has
committed to designing all homes to include an area
of the home that may be used as a home office and
will provide the infrastructure to all homes, so that
every home will have access to high‐speed internet
services.

Goal RM-6: Public Safety Resources. A community that safeguards persons and property through the provision of high-quality public services and crime prevention measures.

Policy RM-6.2: Department Consultation. Promote
coordination between the City of San Jacinto and public safety services during the review of new development
applications to ensure that adequate attention is being paid to fire and safety concerns during the design and
planning of a project.

Consistent: Deputy Fire Marshal Adria Reinertson from
the Riverside County Fire Department evaluated the
project and determined that it would not contribute to
a cumulative negative impact on the ability to provide
emergency services. The project would be responsible
for the payment of development impact fees to offset

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 559 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 4.11-10 Land Use and Planning
General Plan Goal/Policy Project Consistency Evaluation future fire protection needs. The project would also be required to comply with applicable Riverside County Fire Department codes, ordinances, and regulations
regarding fire prevention and suppression measures;
fire hydrants and sprinkler systems; emergency access;
and other similar requirements. Additionally, the
development will be required to form a Community
Funding District to help sustain current and future fire protection and emergency medical capabilities.

Goal RM-8: Educational Resources. A community that supports the continued lifelong learning of all its residents with high-quality educational facilities and opportunities.

Policy RM-8: School Facilities. Work with developers
and the school district to ensure the payment of fees,
construction, and expansion of school facilities to
address expected increasesin school-age population.

Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.15, Public Services.

The proposed project would incrementally increase the
enrollment of students and the use of SJSD facilities. The proposed project would be required to pay
development fees prior to issuance of a building permit to offset the cost of providing school services and
facilities. With payment of development impact fees,
impacts would not be peculiar.

Goal RM-9: Infrastructure Planning. A community that provides adequate, reliable infrastructure, and facilities to support existing and future development.

Policy RM-9.3: Fair Share. Ensure that all new
development provides for and funds its fair share of the costs for the expansion of public infrastructure and
services, recreational amenities, and facilities.

Consistent: The proposed project would be required to
provide for and fund its fair share of the costs of public infrastructure and services, recreational, amenities, and facilities.

Goal RM-10: Solid Waste Management and Recycling. A cost-effective, integrated waste management system that meets or exceeds recycling and waste diversion mandates and community expectations.

Policy RM-10.2: Solid Waste Collection. Provide
adequate waste disposal, recycling, and reuse services
for present and future residents and businesses,
including programs that improve public access to solid
waste collection and recycling facilities.

Consistent: 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. According to City’s 2040 GPEIR, all
three landfills have capacity remaining for the long-term and would have sufficient capacity to serve the project.

The project would comply with all required local and
state regulations to reduce the generation of solid
waste.

Housing Element
Goal 2: Provide adequate sites for new residential construction to meet the needs of all segments of the community while promoting the character of the City.

Policy 2.1: Maintain adequate capacity to accommodate
the City’s unmet Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) for all income categories throughout the
planning period.

Consistent: The project proposes single-family units that will contribute to the City’s diverse housing stock and could contribute to meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 560 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 4.11-11 Land Use and Planning

CITY OF SAN JACINTO DEVELOPMENT CODE
The project site is zoned Residential, Low Density (RL). In accordance with Section 17.215 of Development Code, 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. The zone allows a density ranging from 2.1 to 7.0 dwelling units per net acre. The project proposes a single-family detached residential community at a density of 4.3 dwelling units per acre.

The proposed project is consistent with the RL zone.

The project is consistent with the objective standards of 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 for the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a peculiar environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 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, 2.4, and 4.4.

Land Use Actions 2e and 2f. Mobility Policies 1.1 through 1.6, 1.8, 2.1 through 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 4.2, 4.5, and 6.1 through 6.4. Mobility Actions 1a, 1b, 1d, 2a through 2d, 3a, 4a, 6a, 6b, and 6c. Public Safety Policies 7.1 through 7.14. Public Safety Actions 7a, 7d, 7e, and 7f. Resource Management Policies 1.1,

1.3, 1.4, 4.1 4.1, and 4.4 through 4.11. Resource Management Actions 4a through 4o. Environmental Justice Policies 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.2, 3.4, 5.1, and 5.2.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 561 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 4.11-12 Land Use and Planning
This page was intentionally left blank.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 562 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 4.12-1 Mineral Resources

4.12 Mineral 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. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed impacts to mineral resources on pages 5.12-3 through 5.12-4. The GPEIR determined that the City has no known or identified mineral resources of regional or Statewide importance. Additionally, the GP Resource Management Element includes policies and actions to protect mineral resources associated with mining activities. Therefore, the GPEIR determined impacts related to mineral resources would be less than significant.

PROJECT ANALYSIS
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact: This topic was evaluated on page 5.12-3 of the GPEIR. As shown in GPEIR Figure 5.12-1, Mineral Resource Zones, the Project site is identified as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), which is defined as an area containing known or inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. However, according to the GPEIR, there are no known mineral deposits or resources in the City or the City’s sphere of influence that are of significant value to the region or the State. 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 the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact: This topic was evaluated on page 5.12-3 of the GPEIR. According to the GPEIR, there are no locally important mineral resource recovery sites within the City limits or the City’s Sphere of Influence. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in the loss of available locally important mineral resources. 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. 325 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 563 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 4.12-2 Mineral Resources
This page was intentionally left blank.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 564 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 4.13-1 Noise

4.13 Noise
Would the project result in:

Significant
Impact
Peculiar to the
Project or
Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the GPEIR
No Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed noise and vibration impacts on pages 5.13-27 through 5.13-48. The GPEIR determined that with implementation of the GP, the primary noise source in the City would continue to be vehicle traffic. The GPEIR determined the traffic noise increases associated with the GP would exceed the applicable noise exposure criteria. The GP incorporates policies and actions intended to minimize exposure to excessive noise, including noise associated with traffic. However, even with implementation of GP policies and actions, traffic noise on existing noise-sensitive uses would remain significant and unavoidable. The GPEIR determined noise impacts from stationary noise sources would be less than significant with the implementation of GP policies and actions which are intended to reduce noise associated with stationary sources. Additionally, detailed noise studies outlining site specific noise control measures would be required for future land use projects proposed under the GP which would further reduce the noise associated with stationary sources.

The GPEIR determined implementation of the GP would result in short-term noise impact associated with construction activities. Short-term noise associated with construction would occur both offsite through construction crew commutes and transport of equipment and materials and onsite through grading and use of construction equipment. Short-term construction-related noise impacts associated with worker commute and equipment transport would be a less than significant impact because the effect on ambient noise would be less than 1 decibel (dBA) when averaged over one hour or 24 hours which is not perceptible to human ears. Short-term noise impacts related to onsite construction activities were determined to result in a less than significant impact with implementation of the City’s noise element and GP policies.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 565 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 4.13-2 Noise
The GPEIR determined that construction activities in the City have the potential to result in significant impacts related to groundborne vibration. However, vibration related impacts would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the GP Public Safety Element Action PS-6h, which limits vibration levels to 0.08 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) for historical buildings and 0.3 in/sec PPV for contemporary buildings and requires vibration studies for new development projects that have the potential to generate vibration impacts which exceed the vibration limits.

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

PROJECT ANALYSIS
The following analysis is based in part on a Noise Impact Analysis prepared by Vista Environmental, dated October 31, 2022. The report is presented in its entirety in Appendix G. Note that the Noise Impact Analysis references the 2006 General Plan; however, this Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist includes the updated tables and goals/policies of the City of San Jacinto 2040 General Plan, adopted November 15, 2022.

Background

NOISE LEVELS
Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels to be consistent with that of human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (about the highest note on a piano) and less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 Hertz). Sound pressure level is measured on a logarithmic scale with the 0 dBA level based on the lowest detectable sound pressure level that people can perceive (an audible sound that is not zero sound pressure level). Based on the logarithmic scale, a doubling of sound energy is equivalent to an increase of 3 dBA, and a sound that is 10 dBA less than the ambient sound level has no effect on ambient noise. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound must be about 10 dBA greater than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dBA change in community noise levels is noticeable, while a one (1) to two (2) dB change is generally not perceived. Quiet suburban areas typically have noise levels in the range of 40-50 dBA, while arterial streets are in the 50-60+ dBA range.

SOUND ATTENUATION
Noise levels typically attenuate (or drop off) at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from point sources (i.e., industrial machinery). Additionally, noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by approximately seven dBA.

The manner in which older homes in California were constructed (approximately 30 years old or older) generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units and office buildings construction to California Energy Code standards is generally 30 dBA or more (Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, 2006).

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 566 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 4.13-3 Noise

NOISE METRICS
One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration and sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the average noise level). Typically, Leq is summed over a one (1)-hour period. Lmax is the highest RMS (root mean squared) sound pressure level within the measuring period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the measuring period. The time period in which noise occurs is also important since noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the day. Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) hours, or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and a 10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL usually do not differ by more than one (1) dB. Daytime Leq levels are louder than Ldn or CNEL levels; thus, if the Leq meets noise standards, the Ldn and CNEL are also met.

FEDERAL NOISE CONTROL ACT
The Federal Noise Control Act (1972) addressed the issue of noise as a threat to human health and welfare. To implement the Federal Noise Control Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) undertook a number of studies related to community noise in the 1970s. The EPA found that 24-hour averaged noise levels less than 70 dBA would avoid measurable hearing loss, levels of less than 55 dBA outdoors and 45 dBA indoors would prevent activity interference and annoyance (EPA 1972). The U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published a Noise Guidebook for use in implementing the Department’s noise policy. In general, HUD’s goal is exterior noise levels that are less than or equal to 55 dBA Ldn. The goal for interior noise levels is 45 dBA Ldn.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates noise of aircraft and airports. Surface transportation system noise is regulated by a host of agencies, including the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which regulates transit noise, while freeways that are part of the interstate highway system are regulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Although the proposed project is not under the jurisdiction of the FTA, the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Manual), prepared by the FTA, September 2018, is the only guidance document from a government agency that provides guidance on construction noise and recommends developing construction noise criteria on a project-specific basis that utilizes local noise ordinances if possible.

However, local noise ordinances will usually relate to nuisance and hours of allowed activity and sometimes specify limits in terms of maximum levels but are generally not practical for assessing the noise impacts of a construction project. Project construction noise criteria should consider the existing noise environment, the absolute noise levels during construction activities, the duration of the construction, and the adjacent land uses. The FTA standards are based on extensive studies by the FTA and other governmental agencies on the human effects and reaction to noise and a summary of the FTA findings for a detailed construction noise assessment are provided below in Table 4.13-1, Federal Transit Administration Construction Noise Criteria.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 567 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 4.13-4 Noise
Table 4.13-1
Federal Transit Administration Construction Noise Criteria Land Use Day (dBA Leq(8-hour)) Night (dBA Leq(8-hour)) 30-day Average (dBA Ldn) Residential 80 70 75
Commercial 85 85 801
Industrial 90 90 851
Notes:
1 Use a 24-hour Leq (24 hour) instead of Ldn (30 day).

Source: Vista Environmental, Noise Impact Analysis; October 31, 2022.

Although the proposed project is not under the jurisdiction of the FTA, the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Manual), prepared by the FTA, September 2018, is the only guidance document from a government agency that has defined what constitutes a significant noise impact from implementing a project. The FTA standards are based on extensive studies by the FTA and other governmental agencies on the human effects and reaction to noise and a summary of the FTA findings are provided below in Table 4.13-2, Federal Transit Administration Project Effects on Cumulative Noise Exposure.

Table 4.13-2
Federal Transit Administration Project Effects on Cumulative Noise Exposure Existing Noise Exposure
(dBA Leq or Ldn)
Allowable Noise Impact Exposure dBA Leq or Ldn
Project Only Combined Noise Exposure Increase
45 51 52 +7
50 53 55 +5
55 55 58 +3
60 57 62 +2
65 60 66 +1
70 64 71 +1
75 65 75 0
Source: Vista Environmental, Noise Impact Analysis; October 31, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 568 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 4.13-5 Noise
STATE
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) establishes standards governing interior noise levels that apply to all new single-family and multiple-family residential units in California. These standards require that acoustical studies be performed before construction at building locations where the existing Ldn exceeds 60 dBA. Such acoustical studies are required to establish measures that will limit maximum Ldn levels to 45 dBA in any habitable room. Although there are no generally applicable interior noise standards pertinent to all uses, many communities in California have adopted a Ldn of 45 as an upper limit on interior noise in all residential units.

In addition, the State of California General Plan Guidelines (OPR 2003), provides guidance for noise compatibility. The guidelines also present adjustment factors that may be used to arrive at noise acceptability standards that reflect the noise control goals of the community, the particular community’s sensitivity to noise, and the community’s assessment of the relative importance of noise pollution.

LOCAL
The City of San Jacinto GP and Municipal Code establishes the following applicable policies related to noise and vibration.

City of San Jacinto General Plan
Table 4.13-3, City of San Jacinto Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure from Mobile Noise Sources, shows the maximum acceptable noise levels for different land use types.

Table 4.13-3
City of San Jacinto Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure from Mobile Noise Sources Type of Land Use
Noise Standards1
Exterior Interior
Residential – single-family, multi-family, duplex, and mobile home 65 dBA 45 dBA Residential – transient lodging, hotels, motels, nursing homes, hospitals, assisted care facilities 65 dBA 45 dBA
Private offices, churches, libraries, theaters, concert halls, meeting halls, and schools 65 dBA 45 dBA
General commercial, office, retail, reception, and restaurant 65 dBA 45 dBA Light industrial2 - -
Parks and playgrounds3 65 dBA 50 dBA
Golf courses, outdoor spectator sports 70 dBA -
Notes:

1. In Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).

2. Noise standards do not apply to Light Industrial areas.

3. Outdoor environment limited to playground areas, picnic areas and other areas of frequent human use.

Source: City of San Jacinto, Envision San Jacinto – General Plan 2040 Policy Document; November 15, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 569 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 4.13-6 Noise
The following applicable goals and policies to the proposed project are from the Noise Element of the GP:

Goal PS-6: Noise. A comfortable community environment that is free from excessive noise pollution.

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

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

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

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

A. Mobile Noise Sources:
 Where existing traffic noise levels are within or below the “normally acceptable” noise criteria at the affected land use (see Table PS-1), a readily perceptible 5 dBA CNEL or greater increase in roadway noise will be considered significant;
 Where existing traffic noise levels falls within the “conditionally acceptable” noise criteria at the sensitive land use, a +3 dBA CNEL or greater increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant; and  Where existing traffic noise levels exceed the “conditionally acceptable” noise criteria at the sensitive land use, a +1.5 dBA CNEL or greater increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant.

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

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 570 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 4.13-7 Noise
Policy PS-6.7: Construction Noise. Require construction activities to reduce noise impacts on adjacent uses to the criteria identified in Tables PS-3 and PS-4, or, if the criteria cannot be met, to the maximum extent feasible complying with Chapter 8.40 of the San Jacinto Municipal Code (Noise Control) and use best practices.

Construction activities outside of the permitted construction hours identified in the San Jacinto Municipal Code may be approved on a case-by-case basis by the Community Development Director.

City of San Jacinto Municipal Code
The City of San Jacinto Municipal Code establishes the following applicable standards related to noise and vibration.

8.40.040 – Exterior noise standards.

A. The following exterior noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all properties within a designated noise zone:

Table 4.13-4
City of San Jacinto Allowable Exterior Noise Level Due to Stationary Noise Sources Noise
Zone Type of Land Use
Allowed Equivalent Noise Level, dBA Leq
7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM
I All single-family residential properties 65 45
II All multi-family residential and mobile home parks 65 50 III All commercial property 65 60
IV The residential portion of mixed-use properties 70 70 V
All manufacturing or industrial properties and all
other uses 70 70
Notes:

1. If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient noise level shall be the standard.

2. Measurements for compliance are made on the affected property pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.40.160.

3. It is unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the city to create noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which noise causes the noise level, when measured at any location on any other property, to exceed either of the following:
a. The noise standard for the applicable zone for any fifteen (15) minute period; b. A maximum instantaneous (single instance) noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus twenty (20) dBA for any period of time (measured using A-weighted slow response).

4. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level under such category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.

5. The residential portion of mixed-use properties standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within one hundred (100) feet of a commercial property or use if the noise originates from that commercial property or use.

6. If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different types of land uses, the lower noise level standard applicable to types of land uses shall apply.

Source: City of San Jacinto, Envision San Jacinto – General Plan 2040 Policy Document; November 15, 2022.

B. It is unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated areas of the city to create noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level, when measured at any location on any other property, to exceed either of the following:

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 571 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 4.13-8 Noise

1. The noise standard for the applicable zone for any fifteen (15) minute period;

2. A maximum instantaneous (single instance) noise level equals the value of the noise standard plus twenty (20) dBA for any period of time (measuring using A-weighted slow response).

C. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level under such category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.

E. If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different noise zones the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise shall apply.

8.40.050 – Interior noise standards.

A. The following interior noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all properties within a designated noise zone:

Table 4.13-5
City of San Jacinto Allowable Interior Noise Level Due to Stationary Noise Sources Noise
Zone Type of Land Use
Allowed Equivalent Noise Level, dBA Leq
7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM
I All single-family residential properties 45 40
II
All multi-family residential properties and mobile
home parks 45 40
IV Residential Portion of Mixed Use 45 40
Notes:

1. If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient noise level shall be the standard.

2. Measurements for compliance are made on the affected property pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.40.160.

3. It is unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the city to create noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which noise causes the noise level, when measured at any location on any other property, to exceed either of the following:
a. The noise standard for the applicable zone for any fifteen (15) minute period; b. A maximum instantaneous (single instance) noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus twenty (20) dBA for any period of time (measured using A-weighted slow response).

4. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level under such category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.

5. The Residential portion of mixed-use standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within one hundred (100) feet of a commercial property or use if the noise originates from that commercial property or use.

6. If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different types of land uses, the lower noise level standard applicable to the types of land uses shall apply.

Source: City of San Jacinto, Envision San Jacinto – General Plan 2040 Policy Document; November 15, 2022.

B. It is unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated areas of the city to create noise, or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level, when measured at any location on any other property, to exceed either of the following:

1. The noise standard for the applicable zone for any fifteen (15) minute period;

2. A maximum instantaneous (single instance) noise level equals the value of the noise standard plus twenty (20) dBA for any period of time (measuring using A-weighted slow response).

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 572 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 4.13-9 Noise
C. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level under such category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level.

E. If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different noise zones the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise shall apply.

8.40.060 – Exemptions.

The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter:

A. Any activity conducted on public property, or on private property with the consent of the owner, by any public entity or its officers, employees, representatives, agents, subcontractors, permittees, licensees or lessees that the public entity has authorized, shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter. This includes, without limitation, sporting and recreational activities that are sponsored, co-sponsored, permitted or allowed by the city of San Jacinto or any school district within the city’s jurisdictional boundaries. This also includes, without limitation, occasional outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows or sporting and entertainment events, provided such events are conducted pursuant to an approval, authorization, contract, lease, permit or sublease by the appropriate public entity, including the planning commission or city council;
D. Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition or grading of any real property. Such activities shall instead be subject to the provisions of Section 8.40.090; E. Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition or grading of public rights-of-way or during authorized seismic surveys;
G. Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property. Such activities shall instead be subject to the provisions of Section 8.40.080;
H. Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by state or federal law.

8.40.080 – Real property maintenance noise regulations.

A. No person, while engaged in maintenance of real property, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine (including, but not limited to, any lawnmower, weed eater, leaf blower, mulching machine, or chainsaw) in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a peace officer, except between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m. of the same day.

B. No landowner, occupant, gardener, property maintenance service, contractor, subcontractor or employer shall permit or allow any person or persons working under his or her direction or control to operate any tool, equipment or machine in violation of the provisions of this section.

8.40.090 – Construction activity noise regulations.

A. Weekdays and Saturdays. No person shall engage in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, nor shall operate any tool, equipment or machine, on any weekday or Saturday except between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 573 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 4.13-10 Noise
B. Sundays and Holidays. No person shall engage in construction, remodeling, grading, demolition or other related building activity, nor shall operate any tool, equipment or machine, on any Sunday or any federal holiday.

C. No landowner, construction company owner, contractor, subcontractor or employer shall permit or allow any person or persons working under their direction and control to operate any tool, equipment or machine in violation of the provisions of this section.

D. Exceptions.

1. The provisions of this section shall not apply to emergency construction work performed by a private party when authorized by the city manager or his or her designee;

2. The maintenance, repair or improvement of any public work or facility by public employees, by any person or persons acting pursuant to a public works contract, or by any person or persons performing such work or pursuant to the direction of, or on behalf of, any public agency; provided, however, this exception shall not apply to the city of San Jacinto, or its employees, contractors or agents, unless:
a. The city manager or a department head determines that the maintenance, repair or improvement is immediately necessary to maintain public services, or b. The maintenance, repair or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours, or
c. The city council has approved project specifications, contract provisions, or an environmental document that specifically authorizes construction during hours of the day that would otherwise be prohibited pursuant to this section;

3. Any construction that complies with the noise limits specified in Section 8.40.0 40 or

8.40.050.

8.40.140 – Heating, venting, pool/spa and air conditioning- Special provisions.

Permits for heating, venting and air conditioning (HVAC) and pool/spa equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be issued only after the installation contractor signs an acknowledgment that the installation will meet the noise limits established in Section 5-29.04. Applications for residential mechanical permits for air conditioners may use the methodology specified in Standard 275 “Standard Application of Sound Rated Outdoor Unitary Equipment” of the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI), 1984, as amended. Applicants of mechanical permits for commercial HVAC equipment shall be required to submit a detailed acoustical study that demonstrates compliance with the noise limits established in Section 8.40.040.

8.40.160 – Noise level measurement.

A. The location selected for measuring exterior noise levels in a residential area shall be at any part of a private yard, patio, deck or balcony normally used for human activity and identified by the owner or, if occupied by someone other than the owner, the occupant of the affected property as suspected of exceeding the noise level standard. This location may be the closest point in the private yard or patio, or on the deck or balcony, to the noise source, but should not be located in nonhuman activity areas such as trash container storage areas, planter beds,

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 574 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 4.13-11 Noise
above or contacting a property line fence, or other areas not normally used as part of the yard, patio, deck or balcony. The location selected for measuring exterior noise levels in a nonresidential area shall be at the closest point to the noise source. The measurement microphone height shall be five (5) feet above finish elevation, or, in the case of a deck or balcony, the measurement microphone height shall be five (5) feet above the finished floor level.

B. The location selected for measuring interior noise levels shall be made within the affected residential unit. The measurements shall be made at a point at least four (4) feet from the wall, ceiling or floor, or within the frame of a window opening, nearest the noise source. The measurements shall be made with windows in an open position.

C. Any decibel measurement made pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be measured in decibels (dBAs) as measured with a sound level meter using the A-weighted sound pressure level.

Existing Noise Setting
The project site is located in the central portion of the City of San Jacinto (City). The approximately 96- acre project site is currently utilized for agriculture uses and is bounded by single-family residential uses to the northeast, a detention basin and Lyon Avenue to the east, San Jacinto Reservoir, agricultural uses, and a ranch home to the south, and agricultural uses to the west. 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. There is also a ranch house located as near as 80 feet to the south of the project site. The nearest school is Monte Vista Middle School, which is located as near as 0.6 miles south of the project site. To determine the existing noise levels, noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project site. The noise monitoring locations were selected to obtain noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. Descriptions of the noise monitoring sites are provided in Table 4.13-6 Existing (Ambient) Noise Measurement Results, and are shown in Figure 4.13-1, Field Noise Monitoring Locations.

Table 4.13-6
Existing (Ambient) Noise Measurement Results
Site
No. Site Description
Average
(dBA Leq)
Daytime
Average
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime
1-hr Average dBA Leq/Time 24-hour
dBA CNEL Minimum Maximum
1 Located on the northeastern property
line for the project site, on a sign at the
southwest terminus of Ranch View Lane.

54.6 46.7

42.4 1:37 AM

60.0 1:29 PM

55.6 2
Located on the southeastern area of the
project site on the south corner of a fence
for the detention basin located on the
east side of the project site.

57.0 54.2

46.5 1:40 AM

59.3 7:27 AM

61.5 3
Located on the south property line on a
fence approximately 60 feet west of Lyon
Avenue centerline.

62.2 57.4

51.0 1:50 AM

64.9 5:46 PM

65.4 Note: Noise measurements were taken with two (2) Extech Model 407780 Type 2 sound level meters from Monday, August 29, 2022, to Tuesday, August 30, 2022.

Source: Vista Environmental, Noise Impact Analysis; October 31, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) LEGEND
Noise Measurement Location 3
2 1
3 MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 4.13-1
Field Noise Monitoring Loca ons
Source: Vista Environmental; October 31, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 338
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 576
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 4.13-13 Noise
Project Design Feature
This analysis was based on implementation of the following project design features that are either already depicted on the proposed project site plan and architectural plans or are required from City and State Regulations.

Project Design Feature 1: The project applicant shall provide a “windows closed” condition for each proposed single‐family home. A “window closed” condition requires a means of mechanical ventilation per Chapter 12, Section 1202 of the Uniform Building Code. This shall be achieved with a standard forced air conditioning and heating system with a filtered outside air intake vent for each single‐family home.

PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.13- 27 through 5.13-44 and was determined that implementation of the GP Public Safety Element Policy PS-6.7, which requires construction activities to reduce noise impacts on adjacent uses to comply with the requirements of Chapter 8.40 of the San Jacinto Municipal Code, and Action PS-6e, which requires all construction activity to comply with the limits established in the City’ noise regulation, would result in less than significant construction noise impacts. The GPEIR also determined that implementation of the proposed policies and actions of the GP would reduce noise impacts from stationary noise sources to a less than significant level; however, implementation of the GP Land Use Plan and Roadway Classifications Map would result in substantial permanent increases in traffic-related noise levels (mobile sources) at existing and future sensitive receptors.

Implementation of the proposed project would generate construction noise impacts and long-term operation noise impacts. Construction noise estimates are based upon noise levels reported by the FTA, Office of Planning and Environment, and the distance to nearby sensitive receptors. Reference noise levels from that document were used to estimate noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. Long-term operation noise associated with the proposed project would be traffic related. A noticeable increase would be 3 dBA Leq, which would require a doubling of peak hour traffic volumes.

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS
The noise impacts from construction of the proposed project have been analyzed through use of the FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). Table 4.13-7, Construction Equipment Noise Emissions and Usage Factors, provides a list of the construction equipment anticipated to be used for each phase of construction that was obtained from Vista Environmental for the proposed project.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 577 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 4.13-14 Noise
Table 4.13-7
Construction Equipment Noise Emissions and Usage Factors Equipment Description Number of
Equipment
Acoustical Use
Factor1 (%)
Spec 721.560 Lmax
at 50 feet2
(dBA, slow3)
Actual Measured
Lmax at 50 feet4
(dBA, slow3)
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 40 85 82
Crawler Tractors 4 40 84 N/A
Grading
Excavators 2 40 85 81
Grader 1 40 85 83
Rubber Tired Dozer 1 40 85 82
Scraper 2 40 85 84
Crawler Tractors 2 40 84 N/A
Building Construction
Crane 1 16 85 81
Forklift (Gradall) 3 40 85 83
Generator 1 50 82 81
Tractor 1 40 84 N/A
Front End Loader 1 40 80 79
Backhoe 1 40 80 78
Welder 1 40 73 74
Paving
Paver 2 50 85 77
Paving Equipment 2 50 85 77
Roller 2 20 85 80
Architectural Coating
Air Compressor 1 40 80 78
Notes:
1 Acoustical use factor is the percentage of time each piece of equipment is operational during a typical workday. 2 Spec 721.560 is the equipment noise level utilized by the RCNM program. 3 The “slow” response averages sound levels over 1-second increments. A “fast” response averages sound levels over 0.125- second increments.
4 Actual Measured is the average noise level measured of each piece of equipment during the Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston, Massachusetts primarily during the 1990s.

Reference: Federal Highway Administration, 2006 and CalEEMod Version 2022.1 default equipment mix.

Source: Vista Environmental, Noise Impact Analysis; October 31, 2022.

The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include site preparation and grading of the 96-acre project site, building construction of the 424 single‐family homes, paving of the onsite roads and parking areas, sidewalks and hardscapes, and application of architectural coatings.

Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are residents at the single‐family homes located as near as 15 feet to the northeast of the project site. There is also a ranch house located as near as 80 feet to the south of the project site.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 578 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 4.13-15 Noise
Section 8.40.090 of the City’s Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the City noise standards provided that construction activities are limited to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekdays and Saturdays. However, the City construction noise standards do not provide any limits to the noise levels that may be created from construction activities and even with adherence to the City standards, the resultant construction noise levels may result in a significant substantial temporary noise increase to the nearby residents. Since the City has not adopted an increase above ambient noise threshold level, the plus 5 dBA above ambient threshold from the King v County of Kern Ruling was utilized for the Noise Impact Analysis (Vista Environmental, 2022), found in Appendix G.

This should be considered a conservative threshold, since it is likely that any construction‐related noise increases above ambient threshold that the City may adopt in the future would be higher than this, due to the temporary, short‐term nature of construction activities.

To determine if the proposed construction activities would create a significant substantial temporary noise increase, the FTA construction noise criteria thresholds have been utilized, which shows that a significant construction noise impact would occur if construction noise exceeded 80 dBA during the daytime at any of the nearby homes. Table 4.13-7 shows the anticipated construction equipment per each construction phase. The results are shown below in Table 4.13-8, Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Sensitive Receptors, and the RCNM printouts are provided in Appendix C of Appendix G, Noise Impact Analysis, prepared for the project.

Table 4.13-8
Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Sensitive Receptors Construction Phase
Construction Noise Level (dBA Leq) at:

Homes to Northeast1 Home to South2
Site Preparation 58.8 55.6
Grading 59.4 56.2
Building Construction 58.2 55.0
Paving 52.8 49.6
Painting 44.8 41.6
Maximum Construction Noise Level 59.4 56.2
Existing Ambient Daytime Noise Level 54.6 62.2
Construction Noise Level Above Ambient +4.8 -6.0
Exceed +5 dB Ambient Threshold? No No
Notes:
1 The distance from the center of the project site to the homes to the northeast was measured at 780 feet. 5 dB of shielding was added to RCNM in order to account for the existing 6‐foot wall on northeast side. 2 The distance from the center of the project site to the home to south was measured at 2,000 feet.

Reference: RCNM, Federal Highway Administration, 2006.

Source: Vista Environmental, Noise Impact Analysis; October 31, 2022.

Table 4.13-8 shows that the greatest noise impacts would occur during the grading phase, with noise levels as high as 59.4 dBA Leq at the nearest homes to the northeast and 56.2 dBA Leq at the home to the south. Table 4.13-8 also shows that construction‐related noise would exceed the existing ambient noise levels by up to 4.8 dBA at the home to the northeast, which is below the ambient plus 5 dB threshold detailed above. Therefore, through adherence to the allowable construction times provided in Section 8.40.090 of the City’s Municipal Code, the construction activities for the proposed project

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 579 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 4.13-16 Noise
would not create a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels that are in excess of applicable noise standards. Potential noise 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.

LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS
The proposed project would consist of the development of 424 single‐family homes. Potential noise impacts associated with the operations of the proposed project would be from project‐generated vehicular traffic on the nearby roadways. In addition, the proposed development would be adjacent to Lyon Avenue, which may create exterior and interior noise levels in excess of City standards at the proposed homes. The noise impacts to the nearby existing homes and proposed homes have been analyzed separately below.

ROADWAY VEHICULAR NOISE IMPACT TO NEARBY HOMES
Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires. The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors: (1) the volume of traffic, (2) the speed of traffic, and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. The proposed project does not propose any uses that would require a substantial number of truck trips and the proposed project would not alter the speed limit on any existing roadway so the proposed project’s potential offsite noise impacts have been focused on the noise impacts associated with the change of volume of traffic that would occur with development of the proposed project.

Neither the City’s GP nor the Municipal Code defines what constitutes a “substantial permanent increase to ambient noise levels”. As such, this impact analysis has utilized guidance from the Federal Transit Administration for a moderate impact that has been detailed above in Table 4.13-2, Federal Transit Administration Project Effects on Cumulative Noise Exposure that shows that the project contribution to the noise environment can range between 0 and 7 dB, which is dependent on the existing roadway noise levels. The proposed project’s potential offsite traffic noise impacts have been analyzed for the existing year and opening year 2027 scenarios that are discussed separately below.

Existing Year Conditions
The proposed project’s potential offsite traffic noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the Existing scenario to the Existing with Project scenario. The results of this comparison are shown in Table 4.13-9, Existing Traffic Noise Contributions.

Table 4.13-9 shows that the proposed project’s permanent noise increases to the nearby homes from the generation of additional vehicular traffic would not exceed the traffic noise increase thresholds detailed above. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels for the existing conditions. 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. 342 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 580 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 4.13-17 Noise
Table 4.13-9
Existing Project Traffic Noise Contributions
Roadway Segment
dBA CNEL at Nearest Receptor1
Increase
Threshold2 Existing Existing Plus
Project
Project
Contribution
Ranch View Lane South of Ramona Boulevard 45.3 49.6 +4.3 +7 dBA Lyon Avenue North of Ramona Boulevard 60.1 60.7 +0.6 +2 dBA Lyon Avenue North of De Anza Drive 61.9 62.8 +0.9 +2 dBA Lyon Avenue South of De Anza Drive 61.0 61.9 +0.9 +2 dBA Lyon Avenue South of Cottonwood Avenue 63.7 64.5 +0.8 +2 dBA Lyon Avenue South of Esplanade Avenue 62.1 62.7 +0.6 +2 dBA Ramona Expressway West of Lyon Avenue 67.2 67.2 +0.0 +1 dBA Ramona Boulevard East of Lyon Avenue 66.6 66.6 +0.0 +1 dBA Ramona Boulevard West of Ranch View Lane 60.3 60.9 +0.6 +2 dBA Ramona Boulevard East of Lyon Avenue 58.3 58.5 +0.5 +3 dBA Notes:
1 Distance to nearest sensitive receptors shown in Table G of the Noise Impact Analysis, does not consider existing noise barriers. 2 Increase Threshold obtained from the FTA’s allowable noise impact exposures detailed above in Table 4.13-2, Federal Transit Administration Project Effects on Cumulative Noise Exposure.

Reference: FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA-RD-77-108.

Source: Vista Environmental, Noise Impact Analysis; October 31, 2022.

Opening Year 2027 Conditions
The proposed project’s potential offsite traffic noise impacts have been calculated through a comparison of the opening year 2027 scenario to the opening year 2027 with project scenario. The results of this comparison are shown in Table 4.13-10, Opening Year 2027 Project Traffic Noise Contributions.

Table 4.13-10
Opening Year 2027 Project Traffic Noise Contributions
Roadway Segment
dBA CNEL at Nearest Receptor1
Increase
Threshold2 2027 No
Project
2027 Plus
Project
Project
Contribution
Ranch View Lane South of Ramona Boulevard 45.8 49.8 +4.0 +7 dBA Lyon Avenue North of Ramona Boulevard 62.5 62.9 +0.4 +2 dBA Lyon Avenue North of De Anza Drive 64.4 64.9 +0.5 +2 dBA Lyon Avenue South of De Anza Drive 63.4 63.9 +0.5 +2 dBA Lyon Avenue South of Cottonwood Avenue 66.2 66.7 +0.5 +2 dBA Lyon Avenue South of Esplanade Avenue 63.8 64.2 +0.4 +2 dBA Ramona Expressway West of Lyon Avenue 69.8 69.8 +0.0 +1 dBA Ramona Boulevard East of Lyon Avenue 69.2 69.2 +0.0 +1 dBA Ramona Boulevard West of Ranch View Lane 62.0 62.4 +0.4 +2 dBA Ramona Boulevard East of Lyon Avenue 59.8 60.2 +0.4 +2 dBA Notes:
1 Distance to nearest sensitive receptors shown in Table G of the Noise Impact Analysis, does not consider existing noise barriers. 2 Increase Threshold obtained from the FTA’s allowable noise impact exposures detailed above in Table 4.13-2, Federal Transit Administration Project Effects on Cumulative Noise Exposure.

Reference: FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA-RD-77-108.

Source: Vista Environmental, Noise Impact Analysis; October 31, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 581 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 4.13-18 Noise
Table 4.13-10 shows that the proposed project’s permanent noise increases to the nearby homes from the generation of additional vehicular traffic would not exceed the traffic noise increase thresholds detailed above. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels for the opening year 2027 conditions. 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.

ROADWAY VEHICULAR NOISE IMPACTS TO PROPOSED HOMES
The proposed project would consist of the development of a residential community with 424 single‐ family homes. GP Noise Element Table N‐1 limits the noise impacts to 65 dBA at the exterior of the proposed homes and 45 dBA CNEL at the interior of the proposed homes. It is anticipated that the primary source of noise impacts to the project site would be traffic noise from Lyon Avenue that is adjacent to the southeast side of the project site. The anticipated noise levels have been calculated for backyards that are near Lyon Avenue and the results are shown below in Table 4.13-11, Proposed Homes Exterior and Interior Noise Levels from Lyon Avenue.

Table 4.13-11
Proposed Homes Exterior and Interior Noise Levels from Lyon Avenue Lot
Number
Exterior Backyard Noise Level
(dBA CNEL) Interior Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) Exceed Exterior or Interior Threshold?
Without Sound Wall With Sound Wall1 Floor Noise Level2
115 62 55
First 41 No/No
Second 41 No/No
116 65 58
First 44 No/No
Second 44 No/No
117 62 55
First 41 No/No
Second 41 No/No
118 58 52
First 38 No/No
Second 38 No/No
Notes:
1 Although not shown on Site Plan, the City typically requires construction of a 6-foot-high CMU wall adjacent to Major roadways.
2 Based on a 20 dB exterior to interior noise reduction rate (County of Riverside, 2015).

Reference: FHWA RD-77-108 Model.

Source: Vista Environmental, Noise Impact Analysis; October 31, 2022.

Table 4.13-11 shows that the noise levels at all analyzed homes backyards that are near Lyon Avenue would be within the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL. Table 4.13-11 also shows that the interior noise levels of all analyzed homes would be within the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. 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 Goal PS-1. Public Safety Policies 6.1 through 6.10. Public Safety Actions 6a through 6i.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 582 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 4.13-19 Noise
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.13- 45 through 5.13-47 and was determined that construction activities in the GP area have the potential to result in significant impacts related to groundborne vibration. This impact would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the GP Public Safety Element Action PS-6h, which limits vibration levels to 0.08 in/sec PPV for historical buildings and 0.3 in/sec PPV for contemporary buildings and requires vibration studies for new development projects that have the potential to generate vibration impacts, which exceed the vibration limits. Operational vibration sources associated with heavy trucks would be reduced to less than significant by maintaining roadway surfaces(e.g., repairing potholes).

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Vibration is a unique form of noise as the energy is transmitted through buildings, structures and the ground whereas audible noise energy is transmitted through the air. Thus, vibration is generally felt rather than heard. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second and is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB) for the purpose of evaluating the potential for adverse construction-related impacts. The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is a PPV of approximately 0.01 inches/second which equates to 65 VdB. A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels.).

CONSTRUCTION-RELATED VIBRATION IMPACTS
The construction activities for the proposed project are anticipated to include site preparation and grading of the 96-acre project site, building construction of the 424 single‐family homes, paving of the onsite roads and parking areas, sidewalks and hardscapes, and application of architectural coatings.

Vibration impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would typically be created from the operation of heavy off‐road equipment. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are residents at the single‐family homes located as near as 15 feet to the northeast of the project site.

Since neither the City’s Municipal nor the GP provide a quantifiable vibration threshold for temporary construction activities, guidance from the Transportation and Construction‐Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, prepared by Caltrans, April 2020, has been utilized, which defines the threshold of perception from transient sources such as off‐road construction equipment at 0.25 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV).

The primary source of vibration during construction would be from the operation of a bulldozer. As shown in Table 4.13-12, FTA Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, a large bulldozer would create a vibration level of 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet. Based on typical propagation rates, the vibration level at the nearest offsite home (15 feet to the northeast) would be 0.16 inch per second PPV. The vibration level at the nearest offsite home would be below the 0.25 inch per second PPV threshold detailed above. 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. 345 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 583 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 4.13-20 Noise
Table 4.13-12
FTA Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment Peak Particle Velocity
(inches/second)
Approximate Vibration Level
(Lv) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact)
Upper range typical

1.518 112

0.644 104
Pile driver (sonic)
Upper range typical

0.734 105

0.170 93
Calm shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small dozer 0.003 58
Source: Vista Environmental, Noise Impact Analysis; October 31, 2022.

OPERATIONS-RELATED VIBRATION IMPACTS
The proposed project would consist of the development of 424 single-family homes. The on-going operation of the proposed project would not include the operation of any known vibration sources other than typical onsite vehicle operations for a residential development. Therefore, potential vibration impacts from operation/occupancy 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 Policy PS-6.7. Public Safety Actions PS-6g and PS-6h.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on page 5.13- 47 and was determined that the City is not located within any adopted airport land use plan, there are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the City, and there are no public airports located within two miles of the City. As such, there are no impacts related to private airports, public airports, airstrips, or adopted airport land use plans.

The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two (2) miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airport is the Hemet‐Ryan Airport that is located as near as 4.7 miles south of the project site. The project site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of this Airport.

Therefore, the proposed homes would not be exposed to excessive aircraft noise. Potential impacts

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 584 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 4.13-21 Noise
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: None are required.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 585 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 4.13-22 Noise
This page was intentionally left blank.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 586 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 4.14-1 Population and Housing

4.14 Population and Housing
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. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed impacts to population and housing on pages 5.14-7 through 5.14-12. The GPEIR determined that the growth projections of the GP would exceed the SCAG 2045 population, housing stock, and employment projections for the City of San Jacinto. However, SCAG uses GP growth projections to form the basis of their planning and policy documents, including regional growth forecasts. Therefore, the GPEIR determined that the growth anticipated with the GP would be considered in SCAG’s updated growth forecasts for the City.

Additionally, the GPEIR determined growth anticipated by the GP would improve the City’s jobs/housing balance by providing additional employment opportunities for residents to potentially work in the area. Therefore, the GP would beneficially impact the City’s jobs/housing balance by improving the jobs/housing ratio when compared to existing conditions. Further, the GP takes into account the States regional housing need per the 2021-2029 period Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Therefore, the GPEIR determined population and housing growth associated with the GP would result in a less than significant impact.

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

PROJECT ANALYSIS
Existing Setting
SCAG is a regional council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties, which encompass over 38,000 square miles. SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization for this region and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 587 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 4.14-2 Population and Housing
The SCAG Regional Council fully adopted Connect SoCal in September 2020. Connect SoCal, also known as the 2020 – 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RTP/SCS, builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. The long-range visioning plan balances future mobility and housing needs with goals for the environment, the regional economy, social equity and environmental justice, and public health.

The Southern California Association of Governments Connect SoCal Jurisdictional Forecasts 2040 predicts that San Jacinto’s population by 2040 would be approximately 79,900 as shown in Table 4.14- 1, Jurisdictional Population Forecasts 2040. Over the period from 2000 to 2020, San Jacinto had an annual growth rate of 3.8%.

Table 4.14-1
Jurisdictional Population Forecasts 2040
City Name 2000
Population
2005
Population
2012
Population
2015
Population
2020
Population
2040
Population
San Jacinto City 23,779 31,811 45,100 46,923 51,028 79,900 Source: Southern California Associate of Governments 2016/2040 RTP SCS.

The Census defines a household as all person occupying a housing unit. Families are a subset of households and include all persons living together who are related by blood, marriage, or adoption.

Single households include persons living alone in housing units, but do not include persons in group quarters such as convalescent homes, dormitories, or rehabilitation facilities. As shown in Table 4.12- 2, Jurisdictional Household Forecasts 2040, by 2040 it is predicted that the City of San Jacinto will have approximately 27,600 households.

Table 4.14-2
Jurisdictional Household Forecasts 2040
City Name 2012
Household
2040
Household
San Jacinto City 13,200 27,600
Source: Southern California Association of Governments 2016 and 2040 RTP/SCS.

SCAG REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA)
The RHNA process is part of the State of California’s general planning process aimed at ensuring that every jurisdiction in California does its part in meeting the housing needs of the State’s population.

The RHNA process identifies the City’s future housing needs resulting from projected growth in population, employment, and households. State law requires the update of General Plan Housing Elements every eight (8) years. The required allocation for the 6th Cycle, from 2021 through 2029 would need to plan to accommodate 3,392 new units, which includes 800 very low units, 465 low, 560 moderate, and 1,567 above moderate-income units as shown in Table 4.14-3, Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2021-2029.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 588 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 4.14-3 Population and Housing
Table 4.14-3
Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2021-2029
Income Category Allocation Percentage
Extremely Low 400 11.5%
Very Low 400 11.5%
Low 465 14%
Moderate 560 17%
Above Moderate 1,567 46%
Total 3,392 100%
Source: City of San Jacinto, 2021-2029 Housing Element. a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on page 5.14- 7 and was determined to have a less than significant impact with the implementation of the policies and actions in the GP. Data from the California Department of Finance (CDOF) details that the City of San Jacinto had a residential population of 54,538 as of January 2024 (CDOF, 2024). The GPEIR estimated that the City has an average of 3.4 persons per household (GPEIR Section 3.5.3, General Plan Buildout Analysis). The GPEIR determined that The General Plan Update growth projections would exceed SCAG’s 2045 population, housing stock, and employment projections for the City. GP growth projections form the basis of SCAG’s planning and policy documents, including regional growth forecasts. Thus, the growth anticipated with the GP would be considered in SCAG’s updated growth forecasts for the City. With implementation of GP policies and actions intended to guide growth to appropriate areas and provide services necessary to accommodate growth, the land uses allowed under the GP, the infrastructure anticipated to accommodate proposed land uses, and the goal and policy framework would not induce growth that would exceed adopted thresholds, beyond those disclosed and analyzed throughout the GPEIR. Therefore, population and housing growth associated with the GP was determined to result in a less than significant impact, as there are no additional potential environmental impacts, beyond those analyzed and disclosed in the GPEIR.

The project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). According to the City’s 2021- 2029 Housing Element, the average household size was 3.71 persons in San Jacinto. The proposed project would develop 424 single-family homes and would increase the population in the City by 1,573 persons. The GP Land Use Map designates the project area as Low Density Residential. The proposed project is consistent with the GP and the population increase generated by the project would be accounted for in the City’s GP growth projections and SCAG regional population forecasts. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in unplanned population growth. Additionally, the project would not construct any new roads or major infrastructure in locations that are not planned for growth and therefore would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the project area, either directly or indirectly.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 589 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 4.14-4 Population and Housing
The proposed project would create 424 single-family homes that could meet housing needs for a wide range of households in the City and would be consistent with GP goals and policies. These would include:

GOAL 2: Provide adequate sites for new residential construction to meet the needs of all segments of the community without compromising the character of the City.

Policy 2.2: Encourage residential development that provides a range of housing types in terms of cost, density, unit size, and configuration.

Policy 2.3: Encourage the use of clustered development to preserve and enhance important environmental resources and open space, consistent with sustainability principles.

The project would also help to meet the housing goals provided in California Senate Bill 330. California Senate Bill 330, “The Housing Crisis Act of 2019” establishes a statewide housing emergency to be in effect until January 2030 and acknowledges California is experiencing a housing supply crisis, with housing demand far outstripping supply. California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth and includes a goal to construct 3.5 million new homes over the next 7 years. Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to meeting the State housing goals. Additionally, the project is proposing market rate housing units and could help meet a substantial portion of the City of San Jacinto RHNA needs of 1,567 above moderate-income households, which is the highest housing allocation need for the City of San Jacinto. Potential housing and population growth impacts associated with implementation of the project 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-2. Land Use Policies

1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 2.6, and 3.1. Land Use Action 3c.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on page 5.14-10. The GPEIR determined that the GP’s impacts on the displacement of people or housing were considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. The GP policies would further ensure that a range of housing types are provided in the City, and that housing conditions are evaluated as the housing supply ages.

Implementation of the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The existing project site is vacant.

Therefore, it would not displace any existing housing or require replacement housing. 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. 352 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 590 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 4.15-1 Public Services

4.15 Public Services
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 substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1) Fire protection?
2) Police protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other public facilities?

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed impacts to fire protection services on pages 5.15-15 through 5.15-20. The GPEIR determined buildout of the GP would result in additional residents and businesses in the City which may result in the need for additional Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) resources (i.e., additional staffing, equipment, expanded/new facilities). However, the GPEIR discusses that buildout of the GP is expected to occur gradually through 2040. Therefore, at this time, it is unknown whether RCFD would need to expand or construct new facilities to meet the demand of future development in the City. The GP includes a range of policies and actions to ensure that fire protection and emergency services are provided in a timely fashion, are adequately funded, are coordinated between the City and the RCFD, and that new development funds its fair share of services. Further, as development occurs, a proportional increase in property tax, charges for RCFD services, and other funding sources would increase and offset impacts of new development on RCFD’s existing resources in the City.

Municipal Code Chapter 15.08, Building Permits, requires any construction or alteration requiring a building permit and meeting specific conditions to pay certain fees prior to issuance of the building permit. Additionally, for any new residential or non-residential project meeting certain conditions, the owner would be required to annex the property into the City’s Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2003-1 or into a separate new CFD, which would provide financing for fire protection services. New development in the GP would be required to comply with all applicable California Fire Code requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and hydrants and individual project development plans would be reviewed by RCFD to determine specific fire requirements (e.g., fire flow capacities, emergency access, fuel modification plans) applicable to the specific development and to ensure compliance with these requirements. Thus, the GPEIR describes that while the need for future

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 591 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 4.15-2 Public Services
development of new or expanded fire facilities are unknown at this time, any future development under the GP would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the GP, and would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. Therefore, the GP EIR determined impacts related to the provision of fire protection and emergency services would be less than significant.

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

The GPEIR discussed impacts to school services on pages 5.15-24 through 5.15-28. The GPEIR describes that implementation of the GP could result in the development of up to 16,252 dwelling units over existing conditions, which would contribute to a significant addition of students. The GP includes policies and actions to ensure that adequate services are provided to serve growth associated with implementation of the GP. Additionally, pursuant to SB 50, payment of fees to the applicable school district is considered full mitigation for project impacts, including impacts related to the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives for schools. Therefore, individual development projects in accordance with the GP would be required to pay the statutory fees, so that school facilities can be constructed/expanded, if necessary, at the nearest sites to accommodate the impact of project-generated students, reducing impacts to a less than significant level. Further, any future development under the GP would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the GP, and development of school facilities would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. Therefore, the GPEIR determined impacts related to the provision of schools would be less than significant.

The GPEIR discussed impacts to library services on pages 5.15-28 through 5.15-30. The GPEIR determined development accommodated under the GP would result in additional residents and businesses in the City, which would increase the demand for public services, including library services.

Future development is assumed to occur over time through 2040; thus, any increase in demand for library services would occur gradually as additional development and associated population growth is added to the City. The GP includes policies and actions to ensure that library services are adequately funded, are coordinated between the City and the Riverside County Library System (RCLS), and that new development funds its fair share of services. Additionally, any future development under the GP would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the GP, and would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. Therefore, the GPEIR determined impacts related to the provision of library services would be less than significant.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 592 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 4.15-3 Public Services

PROJECT ANALYSIS
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire protection?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on page

5.15-15 and was determined that any future development under the GP would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the GP, and would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of fire protection and emergency services are less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services. The Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) would provide fire protection service for the project. The closest fire station would be Fire Station 25, located at 132 South San Jacinto Avenue, approximately 2.8 miles from the project site. Fire Station 25 includes Type 1 engine with 3 personnel and 1 medic squad with 2 personnel. Fire Station 25 has a 7-minute actual response time. The second closest fire station would be Fire Station 78, located at 2450 Cottonwood Avenue, approximately 3.2 miles from the project site. Fire Station 78 includes Type 1 Engine with three (3) personnel and one (1) medic squad with two (2) personnel. Fire Station 78 also has a 7- minute actual response time.

Implementation of the project would incrementally increase the demand for fire protection services. The project would be consistent with the City’s GP and would not result in substantial unplanned growth that would require additional fire protection beyond that identified in the GP. As part of the evaluation for the project, Deputy Fire Marshal Adria Reinertson from the Riverside County Fire Department was contacted regarding current facility and staffing levels and potential impacts to fire protection services that could be associated with the project.

According to Riverside County Deputy Fire Marshal, the increased demand for fire service would not increase the response time for fire protection services or require the construction of a new fire station or improvements to an existing station to maintain response times.

However, the project would contribute to a cumulative negative impact on the ability to provide emergency services. The project would be responsible for the payment of development impact fees to offset future fire protection needs. The project would also be required to comply with applicable Riverside County Fire Department codes, ordinances, and regulations regarding fire prevention and suppression measures; fire hydrants and sprinkler systems; emergency access; and other similar requirements. Additionally, the development will be required to form a Community Funding District (CFD) to help sustain current and future fire protection and emergency medical capabilities. With payment development impact fees and compliance with Riverside County Fire Codes and Standards, potential impacts to fire

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 593 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 4.15-4 Public Services
protection services 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 Policies 1.5 and 2.1.

Public Safety Goal PS-2. Public Safety Policies 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.10, 2.11, and 5.1. Public Safety Action 2c. Resource Management Goals RM-6 and RM-9. Resource Management Policies 6.1, and 9.1 through 9.5. Resource Management Actions 6c and 6f. 2) Police protection?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.15-20 through 5.15-23 and was determined that any future development under the GP would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the GP, and would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of police protection services are less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection services. The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department would provide police protection service for the project site. As part of this Initial Study, a request was sent to the Riverside County Sherriff’s Department for information on current facility and staffing levels and potential impacts to police protection service that could be associated with the project. At the time of preparing this Initial Study, Riverside County Sherriff’s Department had not provided a response.

The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department maintains a Police Station at 160 W. 6th Street.

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. The City of San Jacinto continues to ensure that the level of service provided by the Sheriff’s Department corresponds to the number of residents and businesses within the City, as well as the current law enforcement problems. The project would incrementally increase the need for law enforcement protection services. The project would be responsible for the payment of development impact fees and would generate taxes to fund existing and future Sheriff’s Department facilities. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with the Sheriff’s Department Code standards. With payment of development impact fees and compliance with the Sheriff’s Department Code standards, potential impacts to the Sheriff’s Department services 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 Policies 1.5 and 2.1.

Public Safety Actions 5d. Resource Management Goals RM-6 and RM-9. Resource

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 594 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 4.15-5 Public Services
Management Policies 6.1, 6.5, and 9.1 through 9.5. Resource Management Actions 6a, 6b, 6d, and 6e.
3) Schools?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.15-24 through 5.15-28 and was determined that any future development under the GP would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the GP, and development of school facilities would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate.

Therefore, impacts related to the provision of schools are less than significant. Overall, increased cooperation and coordination between the City and school districts would ensure high-quality school and community facilities throughout San Jacinto and would not result in significant impacts to school facilities. As such, the GP would result in a less than significant impact on school services and facilities.

The project site is within the San Jacinto Unified School District (SJUSD). As part of this Initial Study, Alexander Adame, Facilities & Operations Facilities Planner from SJUSD, was consulted on current facilities and potential impacts to school services that could be associated with the project. Analysis in this section is based, in part, on information provided by SJUSD during this consultation.

SJUSD serves areas within the cities of San Jacinto, Hemet, Moreno Valley, Beaumont, and unincorporated areas within the County of Riverside. SJUSD currently educates a total student population of approximately 10,590 Kindergarten through twelfth grade students. The School District currently operates seven (7) elementary school sites, two (2) middle school sites, and two (2) high school sites. An additional elementary school is planned near Vernon Avenue and Ramona Expressway.

Table 4.15-1, SJUSD School Locations and 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 4.15-1, the project’s proposed 424 homes would generate an estimated 304 students.

Table 4.15-1
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.

The proposed project would incrementally increase the enrollment of students and the use of SJUSD facilities. According to Alexander Adame, Facility Planning Department, SJUSD would be able to accommodate the new students generated by the project. The project would be

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 595 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 4.15-6 Public Services
required to pay development impact fees prior to issuance of a building permit to offset additional costs of providing school services and facilities. SJUSD currently requires a $4.79 sq foot developer fee. SJUSD is also working on building Rose Salgado Elementary at 600 N Vernon Avenue. With payment of development impact fees, 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: Land Use Policies 1.5 and 2.1.

Resource Management Goals RM-6 and RM-9. Resource Management Policies 6.4, 8.2, and 9.1 through 9.5. Resource Management Action 8a.
4) Parks?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.16-7 through 5.16-17 and was determined to have a less than significant impact. The City of San Jacinto has over 170 acres of parkland. The GPEIR determined that any future development under the GP would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the GP, and would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreational facilities associated with implementation of the GP would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks.

According to the City of San Jacinto Community Service and Facilities Element, the City has responsibility for ten parks. Public parks are scattered throughout the City providing an additional 20 acres of parkland at multiple sites. A 35-acre Regional Park, operated by the Valley-Wide Recreation and Park District, is located within the City limits. Other recreational opportunities include the two (2) golf courses within the sphere of influence, Soboba Springs and Golden Era Golf Courses. The Diamond Valley Lake recreational area to the south of the City also offers the residents of San Jacinto additional outdoor recreation.

The Quimby Act allows local governments to require developers of residential subdivisions to dedicate parkland or pay in-lieu fees. The Quimby Act sets a minimum threshold of 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City of San Jacinto implements the Quimby Act which requires parkland dedication of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents or an in-lieu fee payment as a required condition for approval of a residential subdivision. The standard is useful in determining existing parkland deficiencies and predicting the demand from future population growth.

Project residents would be provided with onsite recreation facilities and open space, which reduces the demand and use of public parkland. The proposed project would be consistent with the GP and would not contribute to unplanned growth that would require additional park facilities. The project’s proposed park and recreation facilities along with existing parkland within the City of San Jacinto would meet the recreational needs of the residents of the

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 596 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 4.15-7 Public Services
proposed project. The project would also be subject to Quimby Act parkland fees to fund existing facilities and/or provide future park facilities which helps maintain existing park facilities and the construction of new park facilities. With compliance with the City’s Quimby Act requirements, potential parkland 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 Policies 1.5, 1.6, 2.1, and 5.4. Resource Management Goals RM-7 and RM-9. Resource Management Policies 1.1, 7.1 through 7.11, and 9.1 through 9.5. Resource Management Actions 1a, and 7a through 7g. 5) Other public facilities?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: The GPEIR determined that any future development under the GP would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the GP, and would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of library services are less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities. The project is consistent with the City’s GP and would not contribute to substantial increase unplanned population growth that would necessitate either construction or expansion of a hospital, community‐based clinic, or other health services facility or program. 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 Policies 1.5 and 2.1.

Resource Management Goal RM-9. Resource Management Policies 8.6, and 9.1 through 9.5.

Resource Management Actions 8c.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 597 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 4.15-8 Public Services
This page was intentionally left blank.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 598 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 4.16-1 Recreation

4.16 Recreation
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. Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed impacts to parks and recreational facilities on pages 5.16-7 through 5.16-17. The GPEIR determined implementation and buildout of the GP would increase the residential population of the City and therefore could result in greater demands on parks and recreation facilities. Although implementation of the GP would cause an incremental increase in demand for parks in the future, this increase could be further reduced to a less than significant level by the provision of public parkland and private onsite recreational amenities and through the payment of park fees, as established in Municipal Code Chapter 15.36, Park and Open Space Development Fees. Compliance with and the implementation of applicable GP policies and actions and compliance with the Municipal Code would ensure parks and recreational facilities would not be overused to the point of substantial deterioration.

Therefore, the GPEIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

The GPEIR also discusses that based on the anticipated 2040 GP buildout population of 107,152, a total of 535.76 acres of parkland will be needed to comply with the City’s park standard of five acres per 1,000 people. The GP itself does not propose site-specific development projects. However, as future development projects are carried out under the GP, they would require a separate environmental review and would be required to comply with regulations in existence at that time, which would address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new parks.

Therefore, with compliance with environmental regulations established at the time future park and recreational projects are proposed, and adherence to GP policies and actions, the GPEIR determined that impacts associated with the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would less than significant. Overall, the GPEIR determined impacts related to recreation would be less than significant through compliance with the GP, Municipal Code, CEQA process, and other applicable regulations.

PROJECT ANALYSIS
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 599 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 4.16-2 Recreation
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.16- 7 through 5.16-13 and was determined to have a less than significant impact. GP Action RM-7a requires new residential development projects to provide adequate parkland equal to five acres per 1,000 residents (0.005 acre per resident) or pay an in-lieu fee prior to occupancy of the project. Furthermore, the GPEIR determined that any future development under the GP would be required to comply with regulations, policies, and standards included in the GP, and would be subject to CEQA review as appropriate. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreational facilities associated with implementation of the GP would be less than significant.

As described previously, the project is anticipated to add approximately 1,573 new residents to the area. The proposed project includes onsite park/recreation amenities for these new residents, which would make them easily accessible and would discourage residents from seeking recreation facilities located outside of the immediate community. These onsite recreation facilities would reduce the proposed project’s demand for existing recreation facilities in the area and would not accelerate substantial deterioration of existing recreation facilities. Potential impacts associated with increasing use of existing and recreation facilities would not be peculiar to the project as the new residents fit within the GP’s population forecasts associated with established land use development plans. 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 1.5, 1.6, 2.1, and 5.4.

Resource Management Goals RM-7 and RM-9. Resource Management Policies 1.1, 7.1 through 7.11, and 9.1 through 9.5. Resource Management Actions 1a, and 7a through 7g. b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.13- 13 through 5.13-17 and was determined that, with compliance with environmental regulations established at the time of future park and recreational projects are proposed, and adherence to GP policies and actions, the environmental impacts associated with the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would be less than significant.

The City provides 170 acres of parkland throughout the City. The nearest parks to the project site include Colonel Lewis Millett Park, Potter Ranch Park, Sky View Park, Daniel Najera Park and Amaden Park. In addition, the proposed project proposes the construction of park/recreation facilities for the future residents. Potential impacts associated with the construction of the proposed park/recreation facilities have been evaluated as part of the proposed project. With the incorporation of City codes and regulations potential impacts associated with the project, including the proposed park/recreation facilities, 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 Policies 1.5, 1.6, 2.1, and 5.4.

Resource Management Goals RM-7 and RM-9. Resource Management Policies 1.1, 7.1 through 7.10, and 9.1 through 9.5. Resource Management Actions 1a, 7a through 7e, and 7g.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 600 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 4.17-1 Transportation

4.17 Transportation
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 a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed impacts related to transportation and traffic on pages 5.17-1 through 5.17-30.

The GPEIR determined the GP would not conflict with applicable plans, polices, or ordinances related to vehicle circulation. The GP includes policies that support access to and the performance of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The GPEIR notes that San Jacinto does not have an adopted bicycle or pedestrian master plan or defined measures of effectiveness for bicycle and pedestrian circulation.

However, the GP includes policies to support access and performance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The GPEIR determined implementation of the GP would not conflict with applicable plans, polices, or ordinances related to bicycle and pedestrian circulation. Additionally, the GPEIR notes the City does not have defined measures of effectiveness for public transit service and circulation.

However, the Mobility Element developed as part of the GP includes policies to support and enhance transit service. Overall, the GPEIR determined the GPwould not conflict with applicable plans, polices, or ordinances related to public transit circulation. The GPEIR determined implementation and buildout of the GP would not increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per person above current conditions. Home-based VMT per resident, work-based VMT per employee, and total VMT per service population are all expected to decrease under the GP. The GPEIR attributes part of the expected VMT reduction to the GP Land Use Plan, which proposes a more balanced mix of residential and employment opportunities that in turn helps to reduce the prevalence of long-distance “supercommutes” for San Jacinto residents. Therefore, the GPEIR determined VMT-related impacts of the GP would be less than significant.

PROJECT ANALYSIS
The following analysis is based on the Traffic Impact Study prepared by RK Engineering Group, Incorporated in June 2022 and is presented in Appendix I. The Level of Service (LOS) discussion in the section is provided for informational purposes to evaluate consistency with relevant plan policies and not for CEQA purposes, which is measured exclusively by Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 601 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 4.17-2 Transportation
Existing Setting

CIRCULATION SYSTEM
The project site is located in the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. 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.

Lyon Avenue
The City of San Jacinto GP Mobility Element classifies Lyon Avenue as a Major Arterial with 112 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
De Anza Drive is classified as a Major Roadway with a right-of-way of 78 feet and two (2) 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 a 11-foot wide of landscaping.

Ranch View Lane
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.

Existing Traffic Conditions
The study area consists of the 14 intersections identified in Table 4.17-1, Traffic Study Area. Existing conditions intersection level of service calculations are based upon manual AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts taken in March 2022 during typical weekday conditions. An inventory of the existing roadway conditions within the vicinity of the project site is shown in Figure 4.17-1, Existing Lane Geometry. Figure 4.17-2, Existing Traffic Volumes, and Figure 4.17-3, Project Only Traffic Volumes, show the resulting baseline of hour traffic volumes. Additionally, the project will be conditioned to install the recommended improvements prior to the issuance of the Certification of Occupancy by the City:
 Ramona Boulevard and Ranch View Lane – The project will be conditioned to install a left-turn pocket on Ranch View Lane northbound approach to westbound Ramona Boulevard.  Ramona Boulevard and Lyon Avenue – The project will be conditioned to prepare engineering plans for the intersection ultimate design and traffic signal as approved by the City.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 602 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 4.17-3 Transportation
Table 4.17-1
Traffic Study Area
No. North-South Street East-West Street Jurisdiction
1 Warren Avenue Ramona Expressway City of San Jacinto/County of Riverside 2 Sanderson Avenue (SR-79) Ramona Expressway City of San Jacinto/County of Riverside/Caltrans 3 Sanderson Avenue Ramona Boulevard City of San Jacinto 4 Ranch View Lane Ramona Boulevard City of San Jacinto
5 Lyon Avenue Ramona Expressway (SR-79) City of San Jacinto/Caltrans 6 Lyon Avenue Ramona Boulevard City of San Jacinto
7 Lyon Avenue De Anza Drive City of San Jacinto
8 State Street (SR-79) Ramona Expressway (SR-79) City of San Jacinto/Caltrans 9 State Street (SR-79) Ramona Boulevard (SR-79) City of San Jacinto/Caltrans 10 Tiger Lane Ramona Boulevard (SR-79) City of San Jacinto/Caltrans 11 Lyon Avenue Cottonwood Avenue City of San Jacinto
12 San Jacinto Avenue (SR-79) Ramona Boulevard (SR-79)/Main Street City of San Jacinto/Caltrans 13 Lyon Avenue Esplanade Avenue City of San Jacinto/City of Hemet 14 Lyon Avenue Florida Avenue (SR-74) City of Hemet/Caltrans Source: RK Engineering, Incorporated, McLeish Ranch Residential Project Traffic Impact Study, June 1, 2022.

Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service Assessment On December 28, 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted revised CEQA Guidelines in accordance with SB 743, which changed the way transportation studies are conducted in CEQA documents. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) replaced motorist delay and level of service (LOS) as the metric for determining level of impacts and significance under CEQA. Although LOS is no longer used to determine level of impacts to the circulation system under CEQA, this document includes a LOS discussion to inform interested parties.

LOS is commonly used to describe the quality of flow on roadways and at intersections using a range of LOS from LOS A (free flow with little congestion) to LOS F (severely congested conditions). The definitions for LOS for interruption of traffic flow differ depending on the type of traffic control (e.g., traffic signal, unsignalized intersection with side street stops, unsignalized intersection with all-way stops). The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6 (Transportation Research Board, 2016) methodology expresses the LOS of an intersection in terms of delay time for the intersection approaches. The HCM methodology utilizes different procedures for different types of intersection control. The City of San Jacinto requires unsignalized intersection operations be analyzed utilizing the HCM 6 methodology.

Intersection operation for unsignalized intersections is based on the weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.

At a two-way or side-street stop-controlled intersection, LOS is calculated for each stop-controlled minor street movement, for the left-turn movement(s) from the major street, and for the intersection as a whole. For approaches consisting of a single lane, the delay is calculated as the average of all movements in that lane. For an all-way stop-controlled intersection, LOS is computed for the intersection as a whole. Table 4.17-2, Level of Service ICU, describes the general characteristics of traffic flow and accompanying delay ranges at unsignalized intersections.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 603 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 4.17-1
Exis ng Lane Geometry
Source: RK Engineering Group, Inc.; June 1, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 366
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 604
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 4.17-2
Exis ng Traffi c Volumes
Source: RK Engineering Group, Inc.; June 1, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 367
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 605
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 4.17-3
Project Only Traffi c Volumes
Source: RK Engineering Group, Inc.; June 1, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 368
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 606
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 4.17-7 Transportation
In accordance with the City of San Jacinto Traffic Impact Guidelines for Vehicles Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, dated June 16, 2020 and the County of Riverside Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service Vehicle Miles Traveled, dated December 2020 (County Guidelines), the Highway Capacity Manual Sixth Edition (HCM 6) is utilized as a technical guide in the evaluation of traffic operations.

Based on the Highway Capacity Method of analysis, level of service for signalized intersections and approaches is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of the increase in travel time due to traffic signal control, driver discomfort, and fuel consumption. Control delay includes the delay associated with vehicles slowing in advance of an intersection, the time spent stopped on an intersection approach, the time spent as vehicles move up in the queue, and the time needed for vehicles to accelerate to their desired speed. LOS criteria for traffic signals are stated in terms of the control delay in seconds per vehicle. The LOS thresholds established for the automobile mode at a signalized intersection are shown in Table 4.17-2, Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections.

Table 4.17-2
Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Level of Service
(LOS)
Control Delay Per Vehicle
(seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Description
A < 10.0
This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.

B > 10.0 and < 20.0
This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.

C > 20.0 and < 35.0
Average traffic delays. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.

D > 35.0 and < 55.0
Long traffic delays At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.

E > 55.0 and < 80.0
Very long traffic delays This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.

F ≥ 80.0
Severe congestion This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing factors to such delay levels.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6, Chapter 19: Signalized Intersections.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 607 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 4.17-8 Transportation

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
The 14 key study intersection spans over the following jurisdictions:
 City of San Jacinto;
 County of Riverside;
 City of Hemet; and
 Caltrans
City of San Jacinto
Signalized Intersections:
 Any signalized study intersection operating at an acceptable LOS D or better without project traffic in which the addition of project traffic causes the intersection to degrade to a LOS E or F shall identify improve operations to LOS D or better.  Any signalized study intersection that is operating at LOS E or F without project traffic where the project increases delay by 5.0 or more seconds shall identify improvements to offset the increase in delay.

Unsignalized Intersections:
a. The addition of project related traffic causes the intersection to degrade from an acceptable LOS D or better to LOS E or F,
OR
b. The projects adds 5.0 seconds or more of delay to an intersection that is already projected to operate without project traffic at a LOS E or F,
AND
c. The intersection meets the peak hour traffic signal warrant after the addition of project traffic.

If the conditions above are satisfied, the improvements should be identified that achieve the following:
 LOS D or better for case a) above or to pre-project LOS and delay for case b) above.

County of Riverside
 LOS “C” shall apply to all development proposals in any area of the Riverside County not located within the boundaries of an Area Plan, as well those areas located within the following Area Plans: REMAP, Eastern Coachella Valley, Desert Center, Palo Verde Valley, and those non-Community Development areas of the Elsinore, Lake Mathews/Woodcrest, Mead Valley and Temescal Canyon Area Plans.
 LOS “D” shall apply to all development proposals located within any of the following Area Plans: Eastvale, Jurupa, Highgrove, Reche Canyon/Badlands, Lakeview/Nuevo, Sun City/ Menifee Valley, Harvest Valley/Winchester, Southwest Area, The Pass, San Jacinto Valley, Western Coachella Valley and those Community Development Areas of the Elsinore, Lake Mathews/Woodcrest, Mead Valley, and Temescal Canyon Area Plans.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 608 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 4.17-9 Transportation
 LOS “E” may be allowed by the Board of Supervisors within designated areas where transitoriented development and walkable communities are proposed.

Based on the above-mentioned level of service and impact criteria, LOS D is the minimum acceptable LOS at the applicable key study intersections. As such, operational improvements would be required when existing traffic conditions exceed GP target LOS; when project traffic, when added to existing traffic, will deteriorate the LOS to below the target LOS; or when cumulative traffic exceeds the target LOS.

City of Hemet
Per the City of Hemet General Plan, Section 4.4.1, the City of Hemet has established LOS D as the lowest acceptable LOS for peak-hour intersection movements. The City has also established additional thresholds for project impacts that go beyond acceptable operational LOS to address direct project impacts on roadway capacity. For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), projects that increase V/C by .01 or more on affected roadway segments at intersections already experiencing or projected to experience LOS E or F conditions are considered to create potentially significant impacts and would require level of service improvements.

Caltrans
Since Caltrans no longer has established performance criteria for intersection LOS operations, study intersections under the jurisdiction of Caltrans will be examined under the performance criteria and thresholds of significance set forth by the applicable jurisdiction.

Given the LOS performance criteria and thresholds described above, this analysis utilizes the most constrained minimum acceptable LOS applicable to each study intersection. As such, the minimum acceptable LOS for all 14 key study intersections is LOS D.

PROJECT ANALYSIS
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.17- 17 through 5.17-21 and was determined that implementation of the GP would not conflict with applicable plans, polices, or ordinances related to vehicle circulation, including the City’s multimodal transportation network, and potential impacts are considered less than significant. The GPEIR also determined that the Mobility Element developed as part of the GP contains several policies that support access to and the performance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and enhances transit service, resulting in a less than significant impact.

The proposed project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
The following analysis is based on a Traffic Impact Study prepared by RK Engineers in June of 2022.

The Traffic Impact Study is presented in Appendix I.

As previously shown on Table 4.17-1, Traffic Study Area, illustrates the traffic analysis study area and the jurisdiction of where each study intersection is located. The analysis evaluates traffic conditions

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 609 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 4.17-10 Transportation
of the 14 study intersections identified in Table 4.17-1, Traffic Study Area, for the following scenarios during the weekday AM (7:00 AM – 9:00 AM) and weekday PM (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM) peak periods, The traffic analysis evaluates:
 Existing conditions;
 Background without project conditions – existing plus ambient growth (2% per year to opening year 2027) plus Cumulative Projects; and
 Background conditions with project conditions – existing plus ambient growth (2% per year to Opening Year 2027) Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project.

Access to the new development would be provided from Lyon Avenue/De Anza Drive and Ranch View Lane. The project proposes to construct 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 the construction of the west leg, the intersection of Lyon Avenue at De Anza Drive will operate as a 4-leg all-way stop-controlled 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 westbound approach along De Anza Drive is proposed to convert the exclusive westbound right-turn lane into a shared through/right-tun lane. The proposed west leg (i.e., 4th leg of existing intersection) is proposed to provide one (1) exclusive eastbound left-turn lane and one (1) shared through/right-turn lane. Appropriate signage and striping should be installed to maintain allway stop control. These project-specific improvements are subject to approval by the City of San Jacinto.

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.

Existing Conditions Level of Service
The 14 study intersections are forecasted to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours, with the exception of the following which are currently operating at a deficient LOS:
 Intersection #8 – State Street (SR-79) at Ramona Expressway – PM peak hour only; and  Intersection #11 – Lyon Avenue at Cottonwood Avenue – AM peak hour only.

Future Traffic Conditions
To assess future traffic conditions, project traffic was combined with existing traffic and areawide growth. As directed by City staff, to account for area-wide/ambient growth in the study area, a linear annual growth of two (2) of 2% per year has been applied to the existing 2022) traffic volumes over a five-year period for project opening year 2027 conditions.

Background 2027 with project conditions traffic volumes consist of five (5) years of linear annual growth on top of existing 2022 traffic volumes at 2% per year, plus traffic generated by the cumulative projects and traffic generated by the proposed project as shown in Figure 4.17-4, 2027 With Project Condition Traffic Volumes.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 610 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 4.17-4
2027 With Project Condi on Traffi c Volumes
Source: RK Engineering Group, Inc.; June 1, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 373
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 611
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 4.17-12 Transportation
Project Trip Generation
Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the Tenth Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington D.C., 2017].

Table 4.17-3, Project Trip Generation Forecasts, summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the vehicular trips generated by the proposed project and also presents the proposed project’s forecast peak hour and daily traffic volumes. As shown in Table 4.17-3, the trip generation potential of the proposed residential development was estimated using ITE Land Use 210: SingleFamily Detached Housing trip rates. Table 4.17-3 indicates that the proposed project is forecast to generate 3,998 daily trips, with 297 trips (77 inbound, 220 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 398 trips (251 inbound, 147 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a “typical” weekday.

The anticipated traffic volumes associated with the proposed project are presented previously in Figure 4.17-3, Project Only Traffic Volumes. The traffic volumes presented in Figure 4.17-3 reflect traffic distribution characteristics are shown in Figure 4.17-5, Project Trip Distribution, and traffic generation forecasts are presented in Table 4.17-3.

Table 4.17-3
Project Trip Generation Forecasts
ITE Land Use Code/
Project Description
Daily
Two
Way
AM
Peak
In
PM
Peak
Out
Total
AM
Peak
In
PM
Peak
Out
Total
ITE Trip Generation Rates
#210: Single-Family Detached Housing 9.43 0.18 0.52 0.70 0.59 0.35 0.94 Proposed Project Generation Forecasts
(424 DU) 3,998 77 220 297 251 147 398
Source: RK Engineering, Incorporated, McLeish Ranch Residential Project Traffic Impact Study, June 1, 2022.

Intersection Capacity Analysis
Table 4.17-4, Intersection Capacity Analysis, provides Intersection Capacity analysis of the study area intersections. For the Existing Conditions, all study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS D or better during the peak hours with the exception of the following study scenario:
• Intersection #8 – State Street (SR-79) at Ramona Expressway – PM peak hour • Intersection #11 – Lyon Avenue at Cottonwood Avenue – AM peak hour

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) Source: RK Engineering Group, Inc.; June 1, 2022.

MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 4.17-5
Project Trip Distribu on

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 613 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 4.17-14 Transportation
While all other study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better for Background Without Project Conditions as well as the Background With Project Conditions, the following study intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient LOS:
 Intersection #1 – Warren Road at Ramona Expressway – PM peak hour only  Intersection #2 – Sanderson Avenue (SR-79) at Ramona Expressway (SR-79) – AM and PM  Intersection #6 – Lyon Avenue at Ramona Boulevard – PM peak hour only  Intersection #7 – Lyon Avenue at De Anza Drive – AM peak hour only  Intersection #8 – State Street (SR-79) at Ramona Expressway – AM and PM peak hour  Intersection #10 – Tiger Lane at Ramona Boulevard (SR-79) – AM peak hour  Intersection #11 – Lyon Avenue at Cottonwood Avenue – AM and PM peak hours  Intersection #12 – San Jacinto Avenue (SR-79) at Ramona Boulevard (SR-79)/Main Street AM and PM peak hours
Although key intersection 8, 10, and 12 are forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS during the AM and/or PM peak hours under project conditions, these intersections are not considered to be impacted because of the 5.0 seconds or more.

The following study intersections have been identified for operational improvements for which the project would contribute to an increase in traffic and delay:
 Intersection #1 – Warren Road at Ramona Expressway – PM peak hour  Intersection #2 – Sanderson Avenue (SR-79) at Ramona Expressway (SR-79) – AM and PM  Intersection #6 – Lyon Avenue at Ramona Boulevard – AM and PM peak hours  Intersection #7 – Lyon Avenue at De Anza Drive – AM and PM peak hours  Intersection #11 – Lyon Avenue at Cottonwood Avenue – AM and PM peak hours To reduce potential impacts to study area intersections 1, 2, 6, 7, and 11, the City would condition the Project to contribute funding for such improvements as described under the Impact Analysis Summary below.

Table 4.17-4
Intersection Capacity Analysis
No. North-South Street
Minimum
Acceptable
LOS
Jurisdiction
Delay
(sec/veh)
AM/PM
Level of
Service
AM/PM
Increase
Delay
(2)-(1)
AM/PM
Requires
Improvement
AM/PM
1 Warren Avenue at
Ramona Expressway D City of San Jacinto/ County of Riverside

31.8 32.9
257.9

46.6 C
C
F
D

0.0 -

2.8 -
No
Yes
2 Sanderson Avenue
(SR-79) at Ramona
Expressway
D
City of San Jacinto/
County of Riverside/
Caltrans

80.1 47.8

92.8 48.2
F
D
F
D

8.5 -

4.9 -
Yes
Yes
3 Sanderson Avenue at
Ramona Boulevard D City of San Jacinto 44.6 46.9 D D 5.9 8.1 No
No
4 Ranch View Lane at
Ramona Boulevard D City of San Jacinto 13.1 16.0 B C 0.9 1.3 No
No
5 Lyon Avenue at
Ramona Expressway
(SR-79)
D City of San Jacinto/
Caltrans 21.7 22.4 C C 2.4 3.0
No
No
6 Lyon Avenue at
Ramona Boulevard D City of San Jacinto 37.032.1

62.7 26.1
E
D
F
D

9.5 9.6

19.1 -
Yes
Yes

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 614 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 4.17-15 Transportation
No. North-South Street
Minimum
Acceptable
LOS
Jurisdiction
Delay
(sec/veh)
AM/PM
Level of
Service
AM/PM
Increase
Delay
(2)-(1)
AM/PM
Requires
Improvement
AM/PM
7 Lyon Avenue at De
Anza Drive D City of San Jacinto 235.941.5

48.4 14.7
F
E
E
B

98.2 -
31 -
Yes
Yes
8 State Street (SR-79) at
Ramona Expressway D City of San Jacinto/ Caltrans 48.5 77.4 D E 0.6 2.8 No
No
9 State Street (SR-79) at
Ramona Boulevard D City of San Jacinto/ Caltrans 42.4 39.5 D D 1.1 0.5 No
No
10 Tiger Lane at Ramona
Boulevard D City of San Jacinto/ Caltrans 78.8 41.5 E D 0.9 0.1 No
No
11 Lyon Avenue at
Cottonwood Avenue D City of San Jacinto 205.332.8
125.5

19.9 F
C
F
B 27.2 38.3 Yes Yes
12 San Jacinto Avenue
(SR-79) at Ramona
Boulevard/Main Street
D City of San Jacinto/
Caltrans 158 134.5 F F 0.2 1.3
No
No
13 Lyon Avenue at
Esplanade Avenue D City of San Jacinto/ City of Hemet 28.3 31.3 C C 1.5 2.2 No
No
14 Lyon Avenue at Florida
Avenue (SR-74) D City of Hemet/ Caltrans 31.4 37.7 C D 0.2 2.1 No
No
Source: RK Engineering, Incorporated, McLeish Ranch Residential Project Traffic Impact Study, June 1, 2022.

Project Fair Share Contribution
At locations where the project adds to a forecast deficiency and there is no funding mechanism in place, the project is responsible for a fair-share payment. Fair-share contributions are based on project trip contribution relative to the amount of overall growth from existing traffic conditions. As shown in Table 4.17-5, Project Fair-Share Contribution with Project Conditions, the project fair-share percentages are:
 Intersection #1 – Warren Road at Ramona Expressway – 4.4% (PM Peak Hour)  Intersection #2 – Sanderson Avenue (SR-79) at Ramona Expressway (SR-79) – 3.7% (PM Peak Hour)
 Intersection #6 – Lyon Avenue at Ramona Boulevard – 12.6% (PM Peak Hour)  Intersection #7 – Lyon Avenue at De Anza Drive – 44.5% (PM Peak Hour)  Intersection #11 – Lyon Avenue at Cottonwood Avenue – 19.1% (PM Peak Hour) Table 4.17-5
Project Fair-Share Contribution with Project Conditions No. Intersection
Existing Traffic
Conditions
AM/PM
Background with
Project
Condition Traffic
AM/PM
Growth in Traffic
AM/PM
Project Traffic
AM/PM
Project FairShare
AM/PM
Funding Source
1 Warren Avenue at
Ramona Expressway
No
Impact 2,334 No
Impact 3,705 No
Impact 1,371 No
Impact 60 No
Impact 4.4%
Transportation
Uniform
Mitigation Fee
(TUMF)
Program
2 Sanderson Avenue
(SR-79) at Ramona
Expressway
3,750 4,902 6,955 8,176 3,205 3,274 90 120 2.8% 3.7% TUMF

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 615 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 4.17-16 Transportation
No. Intersection
Existing Traffic
Conditions
AM/PM
Background with
Project
Condition Traffic
AM/PM
Growth in Traffic
AM/PM
Project Traffic
AM/PM
Project FairShare
AM/PM
Funding Source
6 Lyon Avenue at
Ramona Boulevard 821 861 1,357 1,487 536 626 59 79 11.0% 12.6% Fair-Share Payment 7 Lyon Avenue at De
Anza Drive 860 635 1,479 1,349 619 714 238 318 38.4% 44.5% Fair-Share Payment 11 Lyon Avenue at
Cottonwood Avenue 1,397 1,103 2,062 1,829 665 726 104 139 15.6% 19.1% Development
Impact Fee
Payment
TUMF: Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Payment
Source: RK Engineering, Incorporated, McLeish Ranch Residential Project Traffic Impact Study, June 1, 2022.

TRANSIT FACILITIES
The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) provides long-distance service between the City of Hemet and the City of San Jacinto. Bus Route 42 that runs east-west on Cottonwood Avenue would serve project residents. The proposed 424 single-family units would not alter or conflict with existing transit stops, schedules, and impacts related to transit service would not occur.

BIKEWAYS/TRAILS
The City of San Jacinto Bikeway Plan has established three classes of bicycle routes that adhere to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standards:
 Class I Off-road bike paths are located on vacated rail lines, water corridors, or areas otherwise separated from streets.
 Class II On-road bike lanes are located along arterial roadways that are delineated by painted stripes and other features. Cottonwood Avenue is a designated Class II Bikeway.  Class III On-road bike routes share use with motor vehicle traffic. They provide a route that is signed but not striped.

The City of San Jacinto GP Circulation Element shows a Class 1 Class I Multipurpose Trail along Lyon Avenue. The project would dedicate 26 feet of right-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. Additionally, there is a Class II bicycle lane along Cottonwood Avenue and Class I along Ramona Expressway. The proposed project does not involve any offsite improvements that would remove existing bicycle lanes. The existing bicycle lanes would provide transportation opportunities for residents of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any bicycle facilities.

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
There are no existing sidewalks presently on the project site. The proposed project would construct new sidewalks along the roadways throughout the project. This would facilitate pedestrian use and walking to nearby locations. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with pedestrian

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 616 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 4.17-17 Transportation
facilities. Overall, potential impacts related to transit, bicycle, trails, and pedestrian facilities would not be peculiar to the project.

IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
As discussed above, project implementation would not conflict with the City’s circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities. As such, environmental impacts would not be peculiar to the project. Although a project’s impact on LOS/vehicle travel delay is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA, as described in the section above, recommended conditions to address LOS presented below would involve the project contributing its fair share to offset its contribution to vehicle delay:
 Intersection 1 – 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). This intersection is identified as a TUMF improvement and as such, the TUMF fee payment would be considered a sufficient project obligation to alleviate project impacts.  Intersection 2 – Sanderson Avenue (SR-79) at Ramona Expressway (SR-79). 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. This intersection is identified as a TUMF improvement and as such, the TUMF fee payment would be considered a sufficient project obligation to alleviate project impacts.
 Intersection 6 – Lyon Avenue at Ramona Boulevard. Restripe and/or widen the southbound approach of Lyon Avenue to provide a second southbound approach lane (i.e., shared southbound through/right-turn lane). This would require restriping the southbound departure along Lyon Avenue to provide a second southbound departure lane. The project is responsible for a 12.6% fair share contribution.
 Intersection 7 – Lyon Avenue at De Anza Drive. 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 project is responsible for a 44.5% fair share contribution.
 Intersection 11 – Lyon Avenue at Cottonwood Avenue. Install a traffic signal with permissive phasing for all left-turn movements (i.e., 2-phase signal). The peak hour traffic signal warrant is met. Installation of a traffic signal is an identified fee type per the City of San Jacinto Development Fee Schedule. As such, the City DIF fee payment would be considered a sufficient project obligation to alleviate project impacts.

No peculiar project impacts were identified. 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, and 4.4.

Economic Development Policies 3.2, 3.3, and 4.3. Mobility Goals M-3 and M-4. Mobility Policies 1.1,

1.2, 1.5, 2.4, 3.1 through 3.3, 3.6, and 4.1 through 4.5. Mobility Actions 1a.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 617 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 4.17-18 Transportation
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.17- 21 through 5.17-25 and was determined that the GP is not expected to increase VMT per person above the No-GP conditions. The Land Use and Mobility elements developed as part of the GP includes policies to support the reduction of VMT, including increasing the balanced mix of residential and employment opportunities within the City with the proposed land uses. Therefore, the VMTrelated impacts of the GP would be considered less than significant.

The proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). On December 28, 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted revised CEQA Guidelines. Among the changes to the guidelines was the removal of vehicle delay and LOS from consideration for transportation impacts under CEQA. With the adopted guidelines, transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project’s effect on vehicle miles traveled. Lead agencies are allowed to continue using their current impact criteria, or to opt into the revised transportation guidelines. However, the new guidelines must be used starting July 1, 2020, as required in CEQA section 15064.3.

Existing law is that “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment” under CEQA, except for roadway capacity projects. As a result of Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), the new metric in the CEQA guidelines for transportation impacts is VMT per capita. The legislative intent of SB 743 is to balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals for infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of GHG emissions. Under the VMT methodology, screening is used to determine if a project will be required to conduct a detailed VMT analysis. However, SB 743 does not prevent a city from continuing to analyze delay of LOS as part of other plans, studies, or ongoing network monitoring.

The City of San Jacinto has updated their transportation impact guidelines (i.e., Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, dated June 16, 2020) to provide recommendations in the form of thresholds of significance and methodology for identifying VMT related impacts. The proposed project is subject to a VMT analysis and will adhere to the recommendations and practices described in the City’s VMT Guidelines.

Per the City of San Jacinto’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment, dated June 16, 2020, a VMT analysis shall be conducted for land use projects as deemed necessary by the City and would apply to projects that have the potential to increase the average VMT per service population (e.g., population but employment) compared to the subregion (WRCOG region). However, the following are three types of screening that the City may apply to effectively screen projects from project level assessment:
 Step 1: Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
 Step 2: Low VMT Area Screening
 Step 3: Project Type Screening
The City’s TIA Guidelines indicate that residential projects located within a low VMT generating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 618 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 4.17-19 Transportation
To identify if the project is in a low VMT-generating area, the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RIVCOM) was utilized through the Western Riverside County Council of Governments (WRCOG) VMT screening tool website to determine if the proposed project fulfills the Low VMT Area Screening criteria as shown in Table 4.17-6, VMT Screening Analysis.

Table 4.17-6
VMT Screening Analysis
Project APN and TAZ Baseline
Year ODVMT per Service Population
APN: 436-080-001 & 436-080-002
TAZ: 2, 141 2022 29.0
City of San Jacinto Threshold of Significance 33.6
Percent Difference (Project TAZ vs. Jurisdictional Threshold) -13.62% Potentially Significant Impact? NO
Source: RK Engineering, Incorporated, McLeish Ranch Residential Project Traffic Impact Study, June 1, 2022.

Based on the results of the WRCOG VMT Screening Tool, the proposed project’s TAZ VMT is quantified to be 29.0 VMT per service population, which is less than the City of San Jacinto Threshold of Significance of 33.6 VMT per service population. Hence, the proposed project satisfies the Low VMT Area Screening procedure. The project would not have a peculiar VMT impact. 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, and 4.4.

Economic Development Policies 3.2, 3.3, and 4.3. Mobility Goal M-6. Mobility Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.5,

2.4, 3.1 through 3.4, 3.6, 4.1 through 4.5, 6.1, 6.2, and 6.4. Mobility Action 6c. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.17- 25 through 5.17-27. The GPEIR determined that the types of uses included as part of the GP are generally similar to existing and surrounding uses and thereby are compatible with the existing uses in the GP area and in the surrounding area. In addition, the Mobility Element developed as part of the GP contains policies in support of roadway network safety and reducing design hazards. Therefore, the impact of the GP with respect to design and incompatible use hazards would be considered less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Access for the project is planned by constructing 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 project site. The other access for the project is the existing Ranch View Lane terminus located on the northeast portion of the project site.

As part of the project, the west leg of the existing intersection of Lyon Avenue at De Anza Drive would be constructed with a roadway configuration of one (1) exclusive left-turn lane and one (1) shared

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 619 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 4.17-20 Transportation
through/right-turn lane as well as with the appropriate striping and signage. The westbound approach along De Anza Drive is proposed to convert the exclusive westbound right-turn lane into a shared through/right-tun lane. The proposed west leg is proposed to provide one (1) exclusive eastbound left turn lane and one (1) shared through/right-turn lane.

The proposed roadway improvements would be designed in accordance with the City of San Jacinto roadway design standards. Additionally, the proposed project’s primary entrance/exits and emergency vehicle only access would also be constructed to meet City standards and specifications and line of sight requirements. These standards would ensure that the proposed roadway improvements would provide a safe means of travel for motorists and pedestrians. To ensure appropriate design and implementation of all project circulation improvements, the final design of the project site plan, the locations and design of proposed driveways, would be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. With compliance to City roadway design standards and specification and line of sight requirements, potential long-term traffic hazards would be less than significant and not 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.

Implementation of the proposed project would generate short-term construction related traffic. The construction traffic could include mobilization and demobilization of construction equipment, delivery of materials and worker traffic to and from the project site. The proposed project would be required to coordinate with the City to determine the need for Traffic Control Measures. Such measures would include limiting construction equipment mobilization and demobilization activities to non-peak traffic periods, preparing detour and access plans, and use of a flagman, if necessary, to ensure the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians during the construction period. With compliance with the City Traffic Control requirements, potential impacts short-term traffic hazard impacts would be less than significant and not 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

1.1, 3.1, and 3.2. Land Use Actions 3b. Mobility Policies 1.1, 1.5 through 1.8, and 3.1. Mobility Actions 1a, 1c, and 1d.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.17- 27 through 5.17-28 and was determined that adequacy of emergency access associated with future development projects would be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with applicable standards, including vehicular access to ensure that adequate emergency access and evacuation would be maintained. Construction activities that may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures. As part of the site plan and design review process (Development Code Chapter 17.630), future development projects would be reviewed for adequate 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 impact of the GP with respect to emergency access would be considered less than significant.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 620 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 4.17-21 Transportation
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Based on the project traffic report, the operation of the proposed project would not generate a substantial amount of traffic that would cause congestion or queuing along project area roadways that would adversely affect emergency access to the project site. The proposed project would be required to design, construct, and maintain structures and access ways in compliance with local, regional, and state requirements related to emergency vehicle access. Riverside County Fire Department would review and ensure that adequate emergency vehicle access and adequate emergency response times are maintained.

The proposed project would involve the construction of new structures and access ways. The proposed construction activities would occur within the project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the project site or adjacent areas. The proposed offsite roadway improvements and installation of utility connections to existing infrastructure systems would require a temporary partial lane closure. As part of the construction coordination for the project, the project would coordinate with the City of San Jacinto in regard to Traffic Control Measures necessary to maintain emergency vehicle access during construction. With compliance with the City of San Jacinto Traffic Control requirements, potential short-term traffic impacts associated with the emergency vehicle access would be less than significant and not 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: Mobility Policies 1.2, 2.1, and 2.5. Public Safety Policies 5.2 and 5.7.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 621 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 4.17-22 Transportation
This page was intentionally left blank.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 622 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 4.18-1 Tribal Cultural Resources

4.18 Tribal 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 tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code Section
21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of
the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or
2) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed impacts to tribal cultural resources on pages 5.18-11 through 5.18-14. The GPEIR determined that future development under the GP could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, potentially resulting in a significant impact. The GP Resource Management Element includes goals, policies, and actions addressing tribal cultural resources.

Additionally, subsequent development and infrastructure projects would be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA, pursuant to the City’s entitlement review process. Subsequent projects implemented in accordance with the GP would be subject to the provisions of Assembly Bill 52 and may require tribal consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Planning Area. Therefore, the GPEIR determined that compliance with the GP policies and actions and existing regulations would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource and impacts would be less than significant.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 623 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 4.18-2 Tribal Cultural Resources

PROJECT ANALYSIS
This section is based on information and input received from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. This section is also based in part on the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by VCS Environmental in June 2022, updated October 2024. The entire report is presented in Appendix C.

Existing Setting

ETHNOGRAPHY
According to the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix C), the project area is located within traditional territory of the Cahuilla, northeast of the Luiseño and due east of the Gabrielino; however, this area was likely occupied or at least visited by all three tribes.

The Cahuilla are an ethnographic Native American group descended from Late Prehistoric Takicspeaking inhabitants of the region. The name Cahuilla is believed to have originated from the group’s word káwiya for “master” or “boss”.

The territory of the Cahuilla has been described as topographically diverse, “from the summit of the San Bernardino Mountains in the north to Borrego Springs and the Chocolate Mountains in the south, a portion of the Colorado Desert west of Orocopia Mountain to the east, and the San Jacinto Plain near Riverside and the eastern slopes of Palomar Mountain to the west”. Three main divisions of the Cahuilla—Desert, Pass (or Western), and Mountain groups—were defined mainly by geographic distribution, but dialectic differentiation was apparent. A network of trails linking Cahuilla villages and those of neighboring groups, including the Luiseño, facilitated trade and maintenance of social ties.

The Cahuilla were hunter-gatherers who followed a seasonal round of utilizing various floral and faunal resources occurring in their territory. Because Cahuilla territory was comprised of high mountains and arid lowlands, their seasonal round has been characterized as vertical rather than horizontal, with people moving upward and downward in layers of ecological zones ordered by elevation. Settled villages were located near reliable water sources and within range of various resources (food, wood for fuel, and lithic materials for tools). Each village was composed of a group of individuals that were related by blood or marriage and which retained its own specific hunting and resource collecting areas.

Cahuilla lineage groups were linked together in a complex interaction sphere of trade, alliance, intermarriage, and ceremonial exchange with neighboring groups including the Luiseño.

Major villages were fully occupied during winter, but during other seasons task groups headed out in periodic forays to collect available plant foods, with larger groupings from several villages organizing for annual acorn harvests. Researchers have recorded several hundred species of plants used by the Cahuilla for food, utilitarian materials, and medicines. Major plant foods emphasized during late prehistory included acorns, mesquite, screwbean, pinyon nuts, and various seed-producing legumes that were complemented by agave, wild fruits and berries, tubers, cactus bulbs, roots, and greens.

Hunting was accomplished with the throwing stick and bow and arrow; nets and traps were also used for small animals. Stone tools consisted of two (2) general types: ground stone tools (e.g., mortars, pestles, manos, and metates for pounding and grinding) and flaked stone tools (e.g., knives, drills, and projectile points for cutting and piercing). Ground stone tools were typically made from granite or other coarse stone. Flaked stone tools were typically made from chert, jasper, basalt, quartz, quartzite,

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 624 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 4.18-3 Tribal Cultural Resources
obsidian, and other fine-grained stone in which breakage patterns could be controlled and sharp edges would result.

LUISEÑO
The project is located north and east of the ethnographic territory of the Luiseño. The Luiseño are Takic speakers and are descended from Late Prehistoric populations of the region. Takic is part of the larger Uto-Aztecan language stock which migrated west from the Great Basin. The Luiseño name for Lake Elsinore is Paiakhche. The village of Paiakhche is ethnographically documented immediately north of the lake; however, consultation with the Pechanga Tribe shows that the village was located northwest of the Lake and that the correct spelling is Páayaxchi. This name also refers to the Lake itself.

The Luiseño share many similar cultural traits to many other southern California groups. The Luiseño lived in sedentary and independent village groups, each with specific subsistence territories encompassing hunting, food gathering, and fishing areas. Villages were usually located in valley basins, along creeks and streams adjacent to mountain ranges where water was available and where the villages would be protected from environmental conditions and potential enemies. Most inland populations had access to fishing and food gathering sites on the coast.

Luiseño economic and subsistence practices centered upon the seasonal gathering of acorns and seeds; the hunting of deer and small mammals such as rabbits, wood rats, ground squirrels, and birds.

Coastal foods included sea mammals, fish and shellfish. Tool technologies were organized around food collection, storage, and preparation strategies, which was reflected in the type, size, and quantity of food items gathered. Stone (lithic) tools included two (2) types: ground stone and flaked stone tools.

Ground stone equipment included: mortars, pestles, manos and metate grinding slicks, made from granite, schist, and gneiss. Flaked tools included: bifaces, projectile points, scrapers, and gravers, fabricated from siliceous rock such as chert and jasper, microcrystalline chalcedony, obsidian, fine grain ingenious rocks such as basalt rhyolite, and andesite, and hard silica such as quarts and quartzite.

Utilitarian tools were constructed from wood, animal bones, skins, and/or woven from flora materials depending on need. Hunting activities were conducted both on an individual basis and/or organized into group activities, depending on seasonal factors and the game hunted. Acorns encompassed as much 50% of the Luiseño diet. Acorns provided a reliable and abundant food source that was high in calories and could be easily stored for future use. Acorn collection was a central tenant in the lives of the Luiseños and dominated their economic and social structure.

Villages were organized around an inherited chief who exerted sole control over the economy, religious rituals, and territorial matters within the village. The chief at times would consult with a council of elders and shamans on matters of religious practices and on environmental conditions effecting village life. Large villages may have had a complex behavioral and political structure due to their territorial size and economic control, while the smaller villages’ political complexity was limited by their territorial size.

For the Luiseño, Lake Elsinore is an important cosmological center. After becoming sick, Wuyóot was taken to the hot springs of Lake Elsinore for their healing qualities. The Luiseño consider Wuyóot a deity in their creation story as he was the first human and a prophet to the Káamalam, the First People.

The Luiseño also believe that Wuyóot died at the hot springs of Lake Elsinore.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 625 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 4.18-4 Tribal Cultural Resources

GABRIELINO/TONGVA/KIZH
At the time of European contact in 1769, when Gaspar de Portolá’s expedition crossed the Los Angeles Basin, what were to be named the Gabrielino Native Americans by the Spanish occupied the area to the west of the project site. While the term Gabrielino identifies those Native Americans who were under the control of the Spanish Mission San Gabriel Archángel, the overwhelming number of people in these areas were of the same ethnic nationality and language (Takic) group. Their territory extended from northern Orange County north to the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County and eastward to the San Bernardino area.

This and the following ethnographic information relate to currently surviving native peoples still living in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. They maintain their cultural practices and customs. The current Gabrielino Tribe comprises at least five (5) bands that are recognized Tribes by the State of California (they do not, however, enjoy Federal recognition). They include the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation; the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council; the Gabrieleno- Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe; and the Gabrielino/Tongva Nation. The terms the Native Americans in Southern California used to identify themselves have, for the most part, been lost; therefore, the names do not necessarily identify specific ethnic or Tribal groups. Some currently refer to themselves as Tongva, while others prefer the term Kizh. For the sake of clarity and consistency, the term Gabrielino will be used for the remainder of this section.

Large, permanent villages were established in the fertile lowlands along rivers and streams and in sheltered areas along the coast. Eventually, Gabrielino territory encompassed the greater Los Angeles Basin, coastal regions from Topanga Canyon in the north to perhaps as far south as Aliso Creek, and the islands of San Clemente, San Nicholas, and Santa Catalina. Recent studies suggest the population may have numbered as many as 10,000 individuals at their peak in the Precontact Period.

According to Sutton (2010) the Gabrielino arrived in the Los Angeles Basin possibly as early as 1,500 BCE as part of the so-called Shoshonean (Takic speaking) Wedge from the Great Basin region. The Gabrielino would have gradually displaced and/or intermingled with the local peoples, who were probably Hokan speakers. However, it should be noted that Gabrielino origin stories assert that the union of sky and the earth created the world and everything in it; finally producing Wewyoot or Weywot, the father of all people. This occurred in situ, meaning the people were always here and the Shoshonean Wedge hypothesis is, according to the Gabrielino, false.

SACRED LANDS RECORD SEARCH
An NAHC Sacred Lands File Search and Tribal contacts list was requested on December 7, 2021. (Appendix C). A negative Sacred Lands File Search was received from the NAHC on February 2, 2022.

The NAHC also provided a Tribal contacts list of local tribes to consult on the project. They include the following (refer to Attachment C):
 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians; Patricia Garcia-Plotkin, Director of Tribal Historic Preservation Office
 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians; Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson  Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians; Amanda Vance, Chairperson  Cabazon Band of Mission Indians; Doug Welmas, Chairperson

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 626 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 4.18-5 Tribal Cultural Resources
 Cahuilla Band of Indians; Daniel Salgado, Chairperson  Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians; Ray Chapparosa, Chairperson  Morongo Band of Mission Indians; Honorable Robert Martin, Chairperson  Morongo Band of Mission Indians; Ann Brierty, THPO
 Pala Band of Mission Indians; Shasta Gaughen, THPO
 Pechanga Band of Mission Indians; Mark Macarro, Chairperson  Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation; Jill McCormick, THPO  Ramona Band of Cahuilla; Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson  Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians; Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson  Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians; Cheryl Madrigal, THPO  Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians; Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair  Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians; Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians; Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
 Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians; Thomas Tortez, Chairperson

TRIBAL CONSULTATION
The City of San Jacinto initiated tribal consultation by notifying the following tribes: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians; Morongo Band of Mission Indians; Pechanga Band of Mission Indians; Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians; San Manuel Band of Mission Indians; Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians; and Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. Of the notified tribes, only the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians requested consultation, which was conducted on May 8, 2024 and concluded on July 24, 2024.

Recommended conditions received from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and as coordinated with the City were incorporated (Note: the conditions that 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).

PROJECT IMPACTS
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on page

5.18-11 and was determined to have no impact with adherence to and/or compliance with the existing regulatory framework, and GP goals and policies. Compliance with the GP policies and

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 627 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 4.18-6 Tribal Cultural Resources
actions and existing regulations would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource and impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change to a listed historical resource or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). The proposed project site is not listed nor eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). Because historical/tribal cultural resources have been known to occur within the region, there is the potential that historical/tribal cultural resources could be encountered during excavation activities. Consistent with the GP Action RM-3c, Action RM-3d, and Action RM-3g, Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards CR-1 through CR-6 are required which includes onsite monitoring by a qualified Archaeologists and Tribal Representative during construction. With implementation of Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards CR-1 through CR-6 consistent with the GP Action RM-3c, Action RM-3d, and Action RM-3g, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources 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 Policies 3.1 and 3.4. Resource Management Actions 3a, 3c, 3d, 3g, 3h, 3i, and 3j. Consistent with the GP Action RM-3c, Action RM-3d, and Action RM-3g, CR1 through CR-6 are required. Please refer to the Cultural Resources Section 4.5. 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on page

5.18-11 and was determined that while the GP does not directly propose site-specific development with the potential to directly impact a tribal cultural resource, future development allowed under the GP could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. This is considered a potentially significant impact; however, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources associated with future development would be reduced through implementation of GP policies and actions. Compliance with the GP policies and actions and existing regulations would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource and impacts would be less than significant.

Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of the CEQA process and equates significant impacts on “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21084.2). AB 52 requires that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review to evaluate, just as they do for other historical and archeological resources, a project’s potential impact to a tribal cultural resource. In addition, AB 52 requires that lead agencies, upon request of a California

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 628 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 4.18-7 Tribal Cultural Resources
Native American tribe, begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR for a project. AB 52 does not apply to a CEQA exemption, addendum, or 15183 review; and therefore, is not required for the project.

Project implementation would not cause a substantial adverse change to a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. As previously indicated, a record search and pedestrian survey conducted on the project site did not identify any known archaeological/tribal cultural resources on the project site. Three prehistoric isolates are recorded within one-half mile. Although the project site is not located within a general area of sensitivity for prehistorical archaeology, the grading activities associated with construction of the proposed project could encounter native soils and could have the potential to encounter unknown archaeological/tribal cultural resources.

Consistent with the GP Action RM-3c, Action RM-3d, and Action RM-3g, 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. With implementation of Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards CR-1 through CR-6 consistent with the GP Action RM-3c, Action RM-3d, and Action RM-3g, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources 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 Policies 3.1 and 3.4. Resource Management Actions 3a, 3c, 3d, 3g, 3h, 3i, and 3j. Consistent with the GP Action RM-3c, Action RM-3d, and Action RM-3g, CR1 through CR-6 are required. Please refer to the Cultural Resources Section 4.5.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 629 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 4.18-8 Tribal Cultural Resources
This page was intentionally left blank.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 630 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 4.19-1 Utilities and Service Systems

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
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. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water, or
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed impacts related to water supply and infrastructure on pages 5.19-35 through

5.19-54. The GPEIR determined implementation and buildout of the GP would result in population and employment growth within the City, and thus, an overall increase in demand on water supply, which would necessitate construction of future water supply infrastructure. All water infrastructure construction activities associated with future development would be subject to compliance with existing local, State, and federal laws, ordinances, and regulations, which would ensure impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. The City would continue to coordinate with Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) to ensure adequate water distribution facilities are available to serve future development. Furthermore, these future water facilities would be subject to GP policies and actions intended to protect the environment. Therefore, the GPEIR determined implementation of existing regulations and GP policies and actions would reduce impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities to a level that is less than significant.

Similarly to water needs, the GPEIR also determined implementation of the GP would result in an increase in demand on the existing sewer system due to increased sewage flows. Future developments would be reviewed by the City, during site plan review in order to determine if sufficient local and

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 631 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 4.19-2 Utilities and Service Systems
trunk sewer capacity exists to serve the specific development, in accordance with Development Code Chapter 17.630, Site Plan and Design Review. Additionally, the GP includes policies, and actions to ensure adequate wastewater services and facilities and that potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of new or expanded infrastructure would be reduced. Therefore, the GPEIR determined implementation of existing regulations and GP policies and actions would reduce impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities to a level that is less than significant.

The GPEIR also determined development under the GP would result in increased areas of impervious surfaces throughout the City, resulting in the need for additional or expanded stormwater drainage, conveyance and retention infrastructure. Stormwater drainage and conveyance facilities would be evaluated at the project‐level in association with subsequent development projects. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations. Subsequent development and infrastructure projects would also be analyzed for potential environmental impacts, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, the GPEIR determined implementation of existing regulations and GP policies and actions would reduce impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater facilities to a level that is less than significant.

The GPEIR determined future development and growth under the GP would require increased electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications services, potentially resulting in the new construction or relocation of facilities. However, future projects would undergo separate environmental review related to the construction and operation of new electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure. Additionally, future implementing projects under the GP would have to coordinate with each utility provider to establish service, provide any necessary extensions of facilities, and comply with regulations in existence at that time. As future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project will be evaluated for conformance with the GP, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations. Therefore, the GPEIR determined implementation of existing regulations and GP policies and actions would reduce impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities to a level that is less than significant.

The GP is expected to result in increased population and employment growth within the City, and a corresponding increase in the demand for additional water and wastewater supplies. Future development projects would undergo separate environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time to ensure adequate water supply and wastewater treatment capacity exists.

The GPEIR determined that through implementation of existing federal, State, and local regulations and the GP goals, policies, and actions, the environmental impacts to water supplies and wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant.

The GPEIR determined that the City’s projected increase in solid waste generation associated with 2040 buildout under the GP is within the permitted capacity of both the Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill and El Sobrante Landfill. In addition, all future development would be required to comply with the mandatory commercial and multifamily recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341, thus reducing the amount of landfill waste. Furthermore, the GP goals, policies, and actions would reduce the demand for solid waste disposal. Therefore, through the implementation of existing regulations and the GP policies and actions, the GPEIR determined impacts to solid waste disposal service would be less than significant.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 632 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 4.19-3 Utilities and Service Systems
Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code establishes mandatory solid waste and recycling collection to comply with the requirements of AB 939 and AB 341. The City has also established disposal and mandatory recycling requirements for commercial facilities, single family residential and multifamily residential premises to comply with State law diversion requirements. Thus, through the implementation of existing regulations and the GP policies and actions, future development implemented by the GP would continue to comply with management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste and impacts would be less than significant.

PROJECT ANALYSIS
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.19- 35 through 5.19-42 and was determined that GP implementation is expected to result in population and employment growth within the GP area, and thus, an overall increase in demand on water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater infrastructure, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities that would necessitate construction of future associated infrastructure.

For all such utilities and service systems, the GPEIR determined that implementation of existing regulations and GP policies and actions would reduce impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded services and facilities to a level that is less than significant.

The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Implementation of the proposed project would require adding onsite utilities since the project site is currently undeveloped. As part of the construction activities for the proposed project, new onsite utility service systems would be constructed, and they would connect to existing utility systems currently provided in the project area. Construction connections to offsite utility systems would involve some minor trenching. Potential impacts would be short-term and construction BMPs would be in place to minimize construction related impacts. Each utility service provider would be coordinated with on the design/installation of utility systems to ensure they would comply with required construction design standards. With coordination with utility providers and compliance with construction design standards potential adverse impacts to the environment 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 Policies LU-2.1 and LU-3.8.

Land Use Actions LU-2a and LU-3a. Resource Management Goal RM-2. Resource Management Policies RM-2.1 through RM-2.7, RM-5.4, RM-5.5, RM-5.6, RM-9.1 through RM-9.6. Resource Management Actions RM-2a through RM-2h, RM-9a through RM-9f.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 633 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 4.19-4 Utilities and Service Systems
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.19- 42 through 5.119-47 and was determined that GP implementation is expected to result in increased population and employment growth within the GP area, and a corresponding increase in the demand for additional water supplies. Through implementation of existing federal, State, and local regulations and the GP goals, policies, and actions, the environmental impacts to water supplies would be less than significant.

The proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) would provide water service to the project. EMWD water sources include the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Colorado River Aqueduct and local groundwater wells. Specifically, the City’s water supply consists of four (4) groundwater wells, one (1) irrigation well, two (2) treatment facilities and three (3) service connections to EMWD. The proposed project would construct a 6-inch water line system that would connect to an existing 12-inch water main along Lyon Street.

Water Agencies, such as the EMWD, are required to prepare and update their Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) every five (5) years. The UWMP identifies long-term resource planning to ensure that adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water needs. Regional growth projections from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020 Connect SoCal forecast, which are based on the City’s GP Land Use designations, are used in the UWMP to identify future water demands. The UWMP includes a water supply and demand assessment that compares the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the long-term total projected water use over the next 20 years, in five-year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting multiple consecutive water years. EMWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan is an update to the 2015 UWMP and was prepared in response to Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act. Below is a comparison between the supply and demand within the service area for projected years between 2025 and 2045 under a normal water year, single dry year, and multiple dry years; refer to Table 4.19-1, Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison for Retail and Wholesale, Table 4.19-2, Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison for Retail and Wholesale, Table 4.19-3, Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison for Retail, and Table 4.19-4, Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison for Wholesale.

Table 4.19-1
Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison for Retail and Wholesale Unit 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply Totals (Retail) 145,930 157,320 168,900 178,700 187,100 Demand Totals (Retail) 145,930 157,320 168,900 178,700 187,100 Supply Totals (Wholesale) 62,970 57,580 60,000 62,300 64,400 Demand Totals (Wholesale) 62,970 57,580 60,000 62,300 64,400 Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Eastern Municipal Water District, Urban Water Management Plan; Adopted 2021.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 634 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 4.19-5 Utilities and Service Systems
Table 4.19-1, Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison, demonstrates that EMWD will have sufficient supplies to meet both retail and wholesale demands from 2025 to 2045 under average year conditions.

Table 4.19-2
Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison for Retail and Wholesale Unit 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Supply Totals (Retail) 151,130 162,820 174,700 184,700 193,300 Demand Totals (Retail) 151,130 162,820 174,700 184,700 193,300 Supply Totals (Wholesale) 64,770 59,080 61,600 63,600 65,900 Demand Totals (Wholesale) 64,770 59,080 61,600 63,600 65,900 Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Eastern Municipal Water District, Urban Water Management Plan; Adopted 2021.

Table 4.19-2, Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison, demonstrates that EMWD will have sufficient supplies to meet both retail and wholesale demands from 2025 to 2045 under single dry year conditions. EMWD has developed programs to help accommodate increases in demand during dry years including the planned ERRP project which would allow EMWD to rely more heavily on groundwater supplies meeting demand in dry years.

Table 4.19-3
Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison for Retail Unit 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year
Supply Totals 151,130 162,820 174,700 184,700 193,300
Demand Tools 151,130 162,820 174,700 184,700 193,300
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Second Year
Supply Totals 132,700 143,300 153,700 162,500 170,300
Demand Tools 132,700 143,300 153,700 162,500 170,300
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Third Year
Supply Totals 134,900 145,500 155,500 164,100 171,900
Demand Tools 134,900 145,500 155,500 164,100 171,900
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth Year
Supply Totals 137,100 147,600 157,400 165,700 173,500
Demand Tools 137,100 147,600 157,400 165,700 173,500
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fifth Year
Supply Totals 140,200 150,800 160,000 168,000 175,800
Demand Tools 140,200 150,800 160,000 168,000 175,800
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Eastern Municipal Water District, Urban Water Management Plan; Adopted 2021.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 635 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 4.19-6 Utilities and Service Systems
Table 4.19-4
Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison for Wholesale Unit 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year
Supply Totals 64,770 59,080 61,600 63,600 65,900
Demand Tools 64,770 59,080 61,600 63,600 65,900
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Second Year
Supply Totals 63,200 59,100 61,400 63,400 65,600
Demand Tools 63,200 59,100 61,400 63,400 65,600
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Third Year
Supply Totals 62,100 59,600 61,800 63,900 66,000
Demand Tools 62,100 59,600 61,800 63,900 66,000
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth Year
Supply Totals 61,000 60,100 62,200 64,300 66,400
Demand Tools 61,000 60,100 62,200 64,300 66,400
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fifth Year
Supply Totals 59,800 60,600 62,600 64,700 66,900
Demand Tools 59,800 60,600 62,600 64,700 66,900
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Eastern Municipal Water District, Urban Water Management Plan; Adopted 2021.

Table 4.19-3, Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison for Retail, and Table 4.19-4, Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison for Wholesale, demonstrate that EMWD will have sufficient supplies to meet both retail and wholesale demands from 2025 to 2045 under multiple-dry year conditions. The proposed project would consist of the development of 424 single-family detached homes on 87.09 acres with 8.91 acres of open space and landscape areas. The overall land use density of the project would be 4.42 du/acre which would be consistent with the existing GP Low Density land uses planned for the project site. Because the proposed project would be consistent with the development density identified in the GP, the water demand from implementation of the proposed project would be accounted for in the UWMP water demand assumptions and the project would have adequate water supplies for normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to coordinate with EMWD and secure a Will Serve Letter which would ensure that EMWD would provide adequate water service to the proposed project. The design of the water distribution system would be required to coordinate with EMWD to ensure that they are adequately sized to meet the long-term operation needs for the project. With coordination with EMWD long-term operational impacts associated with providing water services 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. 398 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 636 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 4.19-7 Utilities and Service Systems
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards: Land Use Policies LU-2.1 and LU-3.8.

Land Use Actions LU-2a and LU-3a. Resource Management Goal RM-2. Resource Management Policies RM-2.1 through RM-2.7, RM-9.1 through RM-9.5. Resource Management Actions RM-2a through RM2h, RM-9a through RM-9e. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.19- 47 through 5.19-49 and was determined that the total amount of projected wastewater flow to EMWD’s San Jacinto Valley RWRF, where San Jacinto sewer water is treated and/or disposed of, for the year 2040 would be approximately 16.4 MGD. The current capacity for the San Jacinto Valley RWRF is 14 MGD and the maximum capacity for the treatment facility is 27 MGD. Therefore, the ultimate capacity of the facility would be able to meet the projected wastewater production from the City of San Jacinto. Implementation of existing federal, State, and local regulations and the GP policies and actions would ensure adequate wastewater treatment capacity and impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Sanitary sewer collection and treatment facilities for the project would be provided by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). EMWD owns and operates an industrial waste and sewer treatment plant that has a capacity of 11.0 million gallons per day. The City of San Jacinto’s total wastewater flow was estimated at approximately two (2) million gallons per day (MGD), according to the 2018 Sewer Master Plan Update. The EMWD is in the process of upgrading the pipeline between its De Anza Lift Station and the San Jacinto Valley RWRF, which would include the construction of 12-inch and 20-inch parallel sewer pipelines along Sanderson Avenue. This improvement was made to accommodate projected wastewater flows in the San Jacinto Valley (City of San Jacinto 2019).

Implementation of the project would incrementally increase the demand for wastewater service. The proposed project would construct a 6-inch sewer line system that would connect to an existing 12- inch sewer main along Lyon Street. Based on San Jacinto Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility, typical daily flows average 7 million gallons per day. Their current capacity allows for 14 million gallons per day and their ultimate capacity is 27 million gallons per day. The EMWD 2018 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update identifies the estimated wastewater generation that would result from different land-use categories based upon a generation rate of 235 gallons per day (gpd) equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). The Wastewater Master Plan also identifies that single-family residences with an average density of 4.5 units per acre (such as the proposed project) would generate

1.0 EDU per residence. Based on this criteria, the proposed 424 residences would generate approximately 90,640 gallons per day, which would be within the existing and future additional capacity of the San Jacinto Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater system capacity would not be peculiar. Additionally, as part of the final design, the proposed project would be required to coordinate with EMWD and secure a Will Serve Letter which would ensure that the EMWD would have the ability to provide adequate wastewater service to the proposed project. The design of the wastewater distribution system would be required to coordinate

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 637 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 4.19-8 Utilities and Service Systems
with EMWD to ensure that they are adequately sized to meet the long-term operation needs for the project. With coordination with EMWD, long-term operational impacts associated with providing wastewater services to the project 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 Policies LU-2.1 and LU-3.8.

Land Use Actions LU-2a and LU-3a. Resource Management Policies RM-9.1 through RM-9.5. Resource Management Actions RM-9a, RM-9b, and RM-9c.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.19- 49 through 5.19-52 and was determined that future development of projects as contemplated under the GP may increase the population within the GP area by an additional 54,280 people. The City has achieved a disposal rate of 3.8 pounds per day per resident in 2019. Assuming these disposal rates remain constant throughout the life of the General Plan Update, the new growth under GP buildout would result in a net increase of approximately 206,264 pounds per day of solid waste over existing conditions, which equals 103.1 net tons per day or 37,631.5 net tons of solid waste per year. The City’s projected increase in solid waste generation associated with 2040 buildout under the GP is within the permitted capacity of both the Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill and El Sobrante Landfill. Through the implementation of existing regulations and the GP policies and actions, this was determined to have a less than significant impact.

The proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. The City of San Jacinto disposes of its waste in the Lamb Canyon Landfill which is located between the City of Beaumont and the City of San Jacinto at 16411 Lamb Canyon Road. The landfill is owned and operated by Riverside County and encompasses approximately 10,88 acres, 144.6 of which are permitted for waste disposal.

LAMB CANYON SANITARY LANDFILL
The Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill is a Class III, municipal solid waste landfill located less than five (5) miles north of the City of San Jacinto, near the City of Beaumont. The property spans approximately 703 acres with approximately 145 acres allocated for waste disposal (Riverside County Department of Waste Resources 2020). Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill has a daily permitted maximum capacity of 5,000 tons per day (TPD) and a remaining capacity of approximately 8.7 million tons as of 2020 (Riverside County Department of Waste Resources 2020). The City of San Jacinto contributed a total of 33,469 tons of waste in 2019, well below the remaining capacity of the landfill (CalRecycle 2021). In 2019, the City of San Jacinto disposed of a total of approximately 92 tons of waste per day, with approximately 53 tons per day of this total disposed at Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill (CalRecycle 2021). The landfill has enough projected capacity to serve residents and businesses until approximately 2029. The landfill will continue to be monitored as it nears capacity. The County has indicated that expansion potential exists at the Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill site (Riverside County Department of Waste Resources 2020).

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 638 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 4.19-9 Utilities and Service Systems

EL SOBRANTE LANDFILL
The El Sobrante Landfill is a Class III, municipal solid waste landfill located just outside of Corona, California. The property spans approximately 1,322 acres with approximately 645 acres allocated for waste disposal (Riverside County Department of Waste Resources 2020). The El Sobrante Landfill has a daily permitted maximum of 16,054 TPD and a remaining capacity of 52.8 million tons as of 2019 (Riverside County Department of Waste Resources 2020). The City of San Jacinto contributed a total of 8,825 tons of waste in 2019, well below the remaining capacity of the landfill (CalRecycle 2021). In 2019, the City of San Jacinto disposed of a total of approximately 92 tons of waste per day, with approximately 24 tons per day of this total disposed at El Sobrante Landfill (CalRecycle 2021). The landfill has enough projected capacity to serve residents and businesses until approximately 2051.

The Lamb Canyon Landfill and El Sobrante Landfill would have capacity remaining for the long-term.

The proposed project would generate 96 tons of solid waste per year. The analysis was based on the default CalEEMod waste generation rate. The amount generated is almost twice as much than what would be generated from the site under the existing low density residential land use designation. Solid waste generated from the project would consist mostly of typical household trash from residents and visitors, and workers.

The project does not involve demolition of any structures. The site preparation phase for the project would involve the removal of vegetation, tree stumps, and stones. It is estimated that approximately 100 trucks of site preparation debris would be disposed at one (1) of the three (3) surrounding landfills, which equates to approximately 55 tons of solid waste. This amount would be disposed of over several days and would be well under the daily amount of solid waste disposal permitted at any of the three (3) landfills.

Potential impacts associated with providing solid waste disposal service 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 RM-10.1, RM10.2, RM-10.4 through RM-10.7. Resource Management Actions RM-10a, RM-10b, and RM-10c. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on pages 5.19- 52 through 5.19-54 and was determined that through the implementation of existing regulations and the GP policies and actions, future development implemented by the GP would continue to comply with management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste and impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The proposed project would produce solid waste associated with the construction stages as well as during operation. The proposed project would be required to comply with state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Applicable regulations include California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) which required cities and counties throughout the State to divert 50% of all solid waste from landfills through source

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 639 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 4.19-10 Utilities and Service Systems
reduction, recycling, and composting; 2008 modifications of AB 939 reflect a per-capita requirement rather than tonnage; AB 341 which increased the statewide goal for waste diversion to 75% by 2020; and the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327) which requires local agencies to adopt an ordinance to set aside areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects.

In accordance with the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery disposal requirements, Best Management Practices would be employed to reduce solid waste disposal such as the recycling of all plastic bags, containers, and green waste composting, chipping, and shredding.

Additionally, Best Management Practices would be implemented to reduce the solid waste generated from construction activities to recycle construction debris where feasible. With implementation of the Best Management Practices and compliance with the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery disposal requirements, potential solid waste disposal impacts would not be peculiar to the project. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the ability to comply with these regulations. 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 RM-10.1, RM10.2, RM-10.4 through RM-10.7. Resource Management Actions RM-10a, RM-10b, and RM-10c.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 640 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 4.20-1 Wildfire

4.20 Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, 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. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding
or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or drainage changes?

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GPEIR
The GPEIR discussed wildfire impacts throughout the document including on pages 5.20-10 through

5.20-26 and determined impacts would be less than significant. As part of the site plan and design review process (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. All future development projects would be required to be consistent with the City’s municipal code standards related to development in high fire hazard areas. Therefore, the GPEIR determined the GP would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant.

PROJECT ANALYSIS
A wildland fire is a non-structural fire that occurs in vegetative fuels. Wildland fires can occur in undeveloped areas and spread to urban areas where the landscape and structures are not designed and maintained to be ignition resistant. The potential for wildland fires represents a hazard where development is adjacent to open space or within proximity to wildland fuels or designated Fire Hazard Safety Zones. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection identifies the project site is not within an area that has not been designated as a High Fire Hazard Area or State Responsibility Area; refer to Figure 4.20-1, Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 641 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 4.20-1
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protec on; July 7, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 404
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 642
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 4.20-3 Wildfire
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact: This topic was evaluated in the GPEIR on page 5.20-10 and was determined that determined that the GP area contains both SRAs and LRAs that are classified as VHFHSZs (with SRAs also containing moderate to high FHSZs). The GP would allow a variety of new development, including residential, commercial, industrial, and public service uses, which would result in increased jobs and population in the GP area. Future development would be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with applicable standards, including vehicular access to ensure that adequate emergency access and evacuation would be maintained. The GP would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. According to the California Department of Forest and Fire Protection, the project site is not identified as a High Fire Hazard Area or near a State Responsibility Area. The Riverside County Fire Department would be in charge of evacuating neighborhoods in the event of a fire that threatens homes. These evacuations would be decided within the Incident Command structure in consultation with the fire department, law enforcement, public works, and local government liaisons in order to establish when and where they would occur. In the event of emergency, residents would be directed to specific evacuation routes to avoid conflicts with emergency response plans. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. 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-2, PS-5, and PS-7.

Public Safety Policies 2.2, 2.3, 2.7, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13, 5.1 through 5.9, 5.13, and 7.1. Public Safety Actions 2a, 5b, 5c, 5f, and 5g. Resource Management Goal RM-6. Resource Management Policies 6.1. Resource Management Actions 6c.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact: The GPEIR determined that with implementation of the applicable GP goals, policies, implementation plans, and compliance with development and fire codes, impacts are considered less than significant.

The proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Topography influences the movement of air and the direction of a fire course. Wind events also magnify the risks of wildfire and would have the potential to expose inhabitants to elevated pollutant concentrations. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the project site is not identified as a High Fire Hazard Area or near a State Responsibility Area. Additionally, the project site is not contiguous to wildland slope areas that could act as conduit for wildland fire. Additionally, the proposed project would have surrounding roadways and driveways which would also act as fire breaks. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 643 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 4.20-4 Wildfire
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. 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 3.7. Public Safety Goal PS-2. Public Safety Policies 2.4, 2.10, and 2.11. Public Safety Actions 2b and 2c. Resource Management Policies 1.5, 4.7, 4.8, and 4.10. Resource Management Actions 1e and 4b. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact: The GPEIR determined that future development anticipated by the GP would require the construction and installation of infrastructure, including roads, water, sewer, and power lines to serve increased growth and development. All future development projects would be required to be consistent with the City’s municipal code standards related to development in high fire hazard areas.

Implementation of the various policies and actions contained in the GP, combined with local and State requirements, would ensure that potential wildland fire hazards would not be exacerbated by local infrastructure. Potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

The proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. The proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the project site is not identified as a High Fire Hazard Area or near a State Responsibility Area. The proposed project would not require the construction of any infrastructure that would increase fire risk. The project includes the construction of water infrastructure and other utility improvements that would aid in fire suppression. The proposed project does not include any changes to existing roadways that would exacerbate fire risk. The proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. 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-2 and PS-5. Public Safety Policies 2.10, 5.1 through 5.9, and 5.13. Public Safety Actions 5b, 5c, 5f, and 5g. Resource Management Goal RM-9. Resource Management Policies 9.1 and 9.2.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 644 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 4.20-5 Wildfire
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact: The GPEIR determined that through compliance with local, State, and federal regulations, and compliance with GP goals and policies, potential exposure of people or structures to significant risks resulting from runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Landslides, including mud flows and debris flows can be triggered by erosion and downslope runoff caused by rain following a fire. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the project site is not identified as a High Fire Hazard Area or near a State Responsibility Area. The proposed project would not increase the risk for wildland fire impacts that expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. 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-1, PS-2, and PS-3.

Public Safety Policies 1.5, 2.11, 3.7, 3.8, and 3.10 through 3.12. Public Safety Actions 1d and 3i.

Resource Management Policies 1.5, 2.4, and 2.5. Resource Management Goals RM-1 and RM-2.

Resource Management Actions 1c, 1e, 1f, 1g, and 2a.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 645 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 4.20-6 Wildfire
This page was intentionally left blank.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 646 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 4.21-1 Mandatory Findings of Significance

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
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 the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the
number, or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
c. Have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
d. Have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of
long-term environmental goals?

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE GPEIR
The GPEIR does not include a Mandatory Findings section as it is not required in an EIR. This section was included to evaluate the project’s potential cumulative impacts as potential cumulative impacts are considered part of a CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 environmental review.

PROJECT ANALYSIS
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: A biological evaluation of the project site identified that no special status plants, wildlife species or critical habitat is present on the project site.

Although no suitable size burrows were observed within the project site, the project site does contain potentially suitable habitat for burrowing owl to occur. Consistent with GP Action RM-1d, Action RM4.1.i Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 647 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 4.21-2 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1i, and Action RM-1j, Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard BIO-1b is required, which includes conducting a pre-construction burrowing owl survey prior to construction and the implementation of protective measures, as necessary. Potential impactsto burrowing owlwould not be peculiar to the project.

Implementation of the project would remove 96 acres of foraging habitat for the ferruginous hawk, Lincoln’s sparrow, northern harrier, grasshopper sparrow, western yellow bat, and loggerhead shrike.

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.

The project site lacks suitable nesting and foraging habitat for least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher and yellow warbler. Suitable habitat is located near the project site. Implementation of the project would not have any direct impact on these species. There is potential that the construction noise impacts generated by the project could indirectly impact the breeding patterns of the least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and yellow warbler during nesting season, which could result in a significant impact. To avoid indirect noise impacts to these species, and consistent with GP Action RM-1j, Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard BIO-1a is required, which requires preconstruction surveys and additional avoidance measures if detected. Potential impacts to these species would not be peculiar to the project.

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. Consistent with GP Action RM-1j, and to avoid direct impacts and indirect noise impacts, Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard BIO-1a is recommended, which limits construction to outside of the nesting season and requires the preparation of pre-construction surveys. Potential impacts to nesting birds would not be peculiar to the project.

The project site does not contain any drainages. Therefore, no state or federal jurisdictional drainages occur onsite. There is a drainage feature located outside of the project site adjacent to the southern boundary that would be completely avoided. Thus, no impact would occur to jurisdictional waters or jurisdictional riparian habitat.

The project site is not located within a designated wildlife corridor or linkage. Further, the site does not contain drainages or adequate topography or habitat necessary to function as a wildlife corridor.

Therefore, no impacts to wildlife corridors would occur.

Implementation of the project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal communities, substantially reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal species. 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.

There could be the potential that cultural resources could be encountered during excavation activities.

Consistent with GP Action RM-3c, Action RM-3d, and Action RM-3g and to avoid impacts to unknown cultural resources that could be present on the project site, the proposed project would be required to comply with Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard CR-1 through CR-6, which include

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 648 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 4.21-3 Mandatory Findings of Significance onsite monitoring by a qualified Archaeologists and Tribal Representative during construction.

Additionally, and consistent with GP Action RM-3e, implementation of Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard PALEO-1 would ensure that a paleontologist observe grading activities, salvage, and catalogue fossils as necessary, and establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance as well as procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work. With implementation of Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards CR-1 through CR-6 and PALEO-1, the project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 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.
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: The proposed project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. A cumulative impact may be significant if a project’s incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can occur as a result of interactions of environmental change from multiple projects that could affect the same environmental resources, such as transportation, noise, and air quality.

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
Related Cumulative Projects
Map ID
No. Jurisdiction Case Number Description
SJ1 City of San Jacinto APN(s): 430-100-002
Marijuana Cultivation and
Processing Facility
236 TSF
SJ2 City of San Jacinto APN(s): 430-130-079
Marijuana Cultivation and
Processing Facility
2,858 TSF
SJ3 City of San Jacinto APN(s): 432-030-012 Single-Family Detached Housing 215 Dwellings
SJ4 City of San Jacinto APN(s): 436-040-006, 436-040-008, and 436-0303-001
Single-Family Detached Housing
138 Dwellings
SJ6 City of San Jacinto APN(s): 434-080-036
Coffee/Donut Shop With Drive-Thru
Window

0.95 TSF

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 649 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 4.21-4 Mandatory Findings of Significance Map ID
No. Jurisdiction Case Number Description
SJ9 City of San Jacinto APN(s): 432-130-008, 432-
130-009, and 432-130-001
Marijuana Cultivation and
Processing Facility
2,636 TSF
SJ10 City of San Jacinto APN(s): 432-130-006 and 432-130- 007
Single-Family Detached Housing
191 Dwellings
SJ11 City of San Jacinto APN(s): 432-120-005
Marijuana Cultivation and
Processing Facility
151 TSF
SJ12 City of San Jacinto APN(s): 436-280-011, 012, 013, and 014
Single-Family Detached Housing
135 Dwellings
SJ13 City of San Jacinto APN(s): 436-490-011 Single-Family Detached Housing 76 Dwellings
SJ13 City of San Jacinto APN(s): 435-030-017 Small Office Building

2.4 TSF
SJ16 City of San Jacinto APN(s): 435-055-042
Marijuana Cultivation and
Processing Facility

12.6 TSF
SJ18 City of San Jacinto APN(s): 432-280-028 Variety Store 10 TSF
TSF: Thousand Square Feet
Source: McLeish Ranch Residential Project Traffic Impact Study, RK Engineering Group, Inc.

The analysis provided in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, identifies that no impacts would occur to mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts to this environmental resource issue.

AESTHETICS
The GPEIR determined that the polices and actions included within the GP and compliance with the Development Code would reduce the cumulative effect of the GP on visual character to a less-thansignificant level. Therefore, the General Plan Update’s incremental contribution to aesthetic impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

The proposed project requests approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Site Plan & Design Review approval to allow for the development of 424 single-family homes. Potential aesthetics impacts for the project site would be minimized or avoided through compliance with the City of San Jacinto GP and Zoning Code requirements and confirmed through the City’s design review process. Therefore, the proposed project would not be contributing to cumulative aesthetic impacts. Related development projects identified in Table 4.21-1 would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis for potential aesthetic impacts and would be required to comply with applicable site development and design standards to minimize potential aesthetic impacts. Compliance with applicable site development and design standards would reduce the potential for significant aesthetic impacts. Therefore, potential cumulative 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. 412 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) EKd
͗&ƵƌƚŚĞƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĚĞƚĂŝůƐĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞĐƵŵƵůĂƚŝǀĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĐĂŶďĞĨŽƵŶĚŝŶdĂďůĞϰ͘ϮϭͲϭĂƐǁĞůůĂƐŝŶdĂďůĞϰͲϯŽĨƉƉĞŶĚŝdž,͕dƌĂĨĨŝĐ/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚLJ͘ MCLEISH RANCH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38203 Modified Initial Study / CEQA 15183 Checklist
Figure 4.21-1
Cumula ve Projects Loca on Map
Source: RK Engineering Group, Inc.; June 1, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 413
Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 651
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 4.21-6 Mandatory Findings of Significance

AGRICULTURE
The GPEIR determined that buildout of the City Land Use Policy Map would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Wide Importance.

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 (CDC 2022). 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 peculiar cumulative impact 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.

AIR QUALITY
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 GP policies and actions.

However, as there is no way to determine the extent to which these regulations would be, or need to be, implemented, it is impossible to determine if potential impacts would be reduced to below regulatory thresholds. Based on these impacts, the GP would contribute to a significant, unavoidable, cumulative impact with regard to air quality in the region and within the air basin as a whole.

Operational Impacts
For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values would not be considered by SCAQMD to be a substantial source of air pollution and would not add significantly to a cumulative impact. Operation of the project would not result in emissions in excess of the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.

The project’s operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds and would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP. Therefore, the project’s operational emissions would not be considered a peculiar cumulative impact. 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 Impacts
The context for assessing cumulative air impacts from short-term construction activities includes quantifying emissions and comparing the emissions to the applicable SCAQMD screening thresholds.

As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, the proposed project’s construction emissions would be below SCAQMD thresholds. Further, the proposed project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Fugitive Dust Rule 403, which would require dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance offsite. With compliance with Fugitive Dust Rule 403, short-term construction air emissions would be less than significant and not peculiar. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Cumulative development projects would be required to reduce their emissions per SCAQMD rules and mandates, cumulative construction emissions would not contribute to an exceedance of air quality standards, and therefore

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 652 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 4.21-7 Mandatory Findings of Significance would comply with the goals of the 2016 AQMP. Thus, it can be reasonably inferred that the projectrelated construction activities, in combination with those from other projects in the area, would not deteriorate the local air quality and would not result in cumulatively considerable construction-related impacts. Construction source emissions for the project would not exceed the applicable LSTs with implementation. Thus, the project’s construction localized emissions would not be considered a peculiar cumulative impact. 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.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The GPEIR determined that cumulative development anticipated throughout Riverside County would result in impacts to biological resources, including the permanent loss of habitat for special status species, corridor fragmentation, direct and indirect impacts to special status species, and reduction and degradation of sensitive habitat. The GP does not change land use designations from open space to development; rather the GP merely intensifies land uses in areas already considered for development. Subsequent projects implemented under the GP would be required to be consistent with the proposed GP policies and actions. Therefore, the GP’s incremental contribution to this cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.

The project site does not support any sensitive vegetation communities. Additionally, no special status species were found. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute considerably to the loss of sensitive vegetation or habitat of sensitive species.

Implementation of the project would remove foraging habitat from the project site for the ferruginous hawk, Lincoln’s sparrow, northern harrier, grasshopper sparrow, western yellow bat, and loggerhead shrike. 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 and would not contribute considerably to the loss of sensitive wildlife species.

There are no jurisdictional waters on the project site. Therefore, no direct impacts to jurisdictional waters would occur and the proposed project would not contribute to the loss of jurisdictional waters.

The surrounding project area of mostly existing developed land uses limits the potential for the project to support regional wildlife movement. Therefore, no impacts to migratory wildlife corridors are expected to occur and the proposed project would not contribute cumulatively to the loss of wildlife movement corridors.

There is potential for migratory native nesting birds to be affected by the proposed project. To avoid impacts to nesting migratory birds and roosting bats, the proposed project would be required to implement Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards BIO-1a, BIO-1b, and BIO-2, consistent with GP Action RM-1d, Action RM-1i, and Action RM-1j.

Related cumulative projects identified in Table 4.21-1 would be required to comply with local, state, and federal laws that provide for the protection of biological resources and where needed, would need to implement measures to minimize impacts to biological resources. Therefore, the proposed project, considered with the related projects, would not result in peculiar cumulative impacts to biological resources. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 653 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 4.21-8 Mandatory Findings of Significance create new impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The GPEIR determined that adherence to the GP policies and actions, and existing federal, State, and local regulations would avoid and/or minimize a cumulative loss of these important resources if they are identified during project-specific surveys or construction activities. Therefore, the GP’s incremental contribution to cumulative cultural resource impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

The context for assessing cumulative impacts to local archaeological and paleontological resources is to determine whether the project would result in a loss of these resources that could diminish or eliminate important information relevant to the history of the project area. Consistent with GP Action RM-3c, Action RM-3d, Action RM-3g, and Action RM-3e, the proposed project would be required to comply with Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards CR-1 through CR-6 and PALEO-1, which would require an archaeologist/paleontologist to evaluate any discovered potential archaeological/ paleontological resources and take appropriate steps to preserve or curate the artifact and halt or redirect work. Such requirements would also be consistent with the City’s Development Code (Chapter 17.500 — Archaeological, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resource Protection), which requires implementation of a Treatment and Disposition Agreement (TDA) with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians to address treatment and disposition of archaeological/cultural resources and human remains associated with Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians that may be uncovered or otherwise discovered during construction of the project. These requirements would minimize any potential loss of important archaeological or paleontological information that may be buried under the project site.

With regard to potential discovery of human remains during construction, grading and construction activities must cease if such remains are encountered pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to a cumulative loss of important archaeological or paleontological resources, and/or disturbed human remains. Related cumulative projects identified in Table 4.21-1 would be evaluated for potential impacts to cultural resources and would be required to implement measures to reduce impacts to cultural resources. Therefore, the proposed project, considered with the related cumulative projects, would not result in peculiar cumulative impacts to cultural/paleontological resources. 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.

ENERGY
The GPEIR determined that, as future development projects are received and reviewed by the City in subsequent years, those projects would be reviewed for consistency with the GP and all relevant Statelevel programs and requirements. 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. As a result, the GP’s incremental contribution to cumulative energy impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 654 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 4.21-9 Mandatory Findings of Significance Implementation of the proposed project would increase demand for electricity and natural gas. The areas considered for cumulative impacts to electricity and natural gas supplies are the service areas of the Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas. All projects within the Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company service areas would be required to comply with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CAL Green, which would contribute to minimizing wasteful energy consumption. With compliance with Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CAL Green, the proposed project and related development projects would not result in peculiar cumulative impacts to energy resources. 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.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The GPEIR determined that seismic, geologic, and soil conditions within the City would vary by location and site-specific suitability for development would not be uniform. If determined necessary, projectspecific mitigation would be incorporated to reduce cumulative seismic, geologic, and soil impacts to a less than significant level. Compliance with federal and State laws, local building codes, and public safety standards, would result in less than significant cumulative impacts related to potential seismic, geologic, and soil hazards.

Like other areas in southern California, the proposed project could be subject to seismic shaking impacts. The proposed residential uses 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. Consistent with GP Action PS-1a, Action PS-1d, Action PS-1f, and Action PS-1g, the proposed project would be required to implement geotechnical design measures recommended in the project geotechnical report, under Uniformly Applied Development Policy or Standard GEO-1, to ensure the stability of the project. With compliance to the California Uniform Building Code, as well as geotechnical design measures, potential geologic impacts would be addressed. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new cumulative impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The GPEIR determined that the GP is not consistent with WRCOG’s plan to reduce GHG emissions below a specific threshold and would therefore have a significant and unavoidable impact even with the implementation of GP goals, policies and actions.

As discussed in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Section 4.8, implementation of the project would create GHG emissions. GHG emissions are generally considered cumulative because they are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide. Because the 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 not be considered a significant cumulative impact peculiar to this project. Furthermore, impacts related to consistency with AB 32 and EO S-03-05 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

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 655 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 4.21-10 Mandatory Findings of Significance new cumulative impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The GPEIR determined that cumulative development would be required to evaluate individual hazards and hazardous materials impacts at the project-level. While some cumulative impacts would potentially occur in the region as individual projects are constructed, the GP policies and actions, as well as local, State, and federal regulations would reduce the risk to people associated with hazards and hazardous materials in the region. As a result, the GP’s incremental contribution to cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

The long-term operation of the proposed project would not 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 would not involve any refueling or maintenance activities that would involve the handling of hazardous substances. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a peculiar cumulatively significant hazard or hazardous materials impact.

The construction and operation of the proposed project would involve the use of incidental amounts of hazardous substances, such as fuel, oil, and solvents. To ensure hazardous substances are not inadvertently released into the environment, the project would be required to comply with local, state, and federal laws regarding the handling, storage and transporting of hazardous substances and would be required to comply with spill prevention and clean-up BMPs during construction. With compliance with local, state, and federal laws and implementation of BMPs, the potential handling of hazardous materials would not be peculiar to the project. The proposed project was also determined not to have a peculiar impact to an emergency evacuation plan. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new cumulative impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The GPEIR determined that, as individual projects are constructed, the GP policies and actions, as well as federal, State, and local regulations, would substantially reduce potential cumulative impacts.

Considering the protection granted by local, State, and federal agencies and their permit and monitoring requirements, and with implementation of the policies and actions included within the GP, the overall cumulative impact would not be cumulatively significant.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project could have the potential to generate degraded surface water impacts which could adversely affect downstream receiving water bodies.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite. The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. 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

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 656 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 4.21-11 Mandatory Findings of Significance 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 has also prepared a Water Quality Management Plan to manage surface water runoff, which would reduce potential water quality impacts; and therefore, the project would not contribute considerably to peculiar water quality impacts.

As discussed in Section 4.10-10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would be located within Zone X, Area With Reduced Flooding Due to Levee, based on the most current mapping of the project site. The existing levee is located adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site as also shown in Figure 4.10-1, National Flood Hazard Map.

Cumulative development projects identified in Table 4.21-1 would have the potential to affect water quality during the operation and construction phases. Related cumulative development would be required to prepare Water Quality Management Plans to manage and treat surface water runoff.

Additionally, projects that disturb one (1) or more acres of soil would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit to avoid and/or reduce construction-related impacts to water quality through preparation of a site-specific SWPPP, which identifies applicable BMPs. Each project would be required to comply with existing water quality standards at the time of development review and implement BMPs, as necessary. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new cumulative impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

LAND USE AND PLANNING
The GPEIR determined that the land uses allowed under the GP provide opportunities for cohesive new growth at infill locations within existing urbanized areas, as well as new growth adjacent to existing urbanized areas, but would not create physical division within existing communities.

Moreover, with implementation of GP policies and actions intended to guide growth to appropriate areas and provide services necessary to accommodate growth, the land uses allowed under the GP, the infrastructure anticipated to accommodate land uses, and the goal and policy framework would not induce growth that would exceed adopted thresholds. Therefore, the GP’s incremental contribution to cumulative land use and population impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

The proposed project would not construct any structures or barriers that would divide existing communities. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute considerably to potential significant land use dividing impacts.

The proposed project requests approval of a Tentative Tract Map, and Site Plan approval to allow for the development of 424 single-family homes. The overall land use density of the project, 4.42 du/acre, would be consistent with the existing GP. Related development projects would be subject to sitespecific planning reviews that would address consistency with adopted GP goals, policies, and actions, as well as with the local Development Code standards. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new cumulative impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 657 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 4.21-12 Mandatory Findings of Significance NOISE
The GPEIR determined that cumulative conditions would contribute to an exceedance of the City’s transportation noise standards and would result in significant increases in traffic noise levels at existing sensitive receptors (significant and unavoidable impact). Implementation of the proposed policies and actions of the GP would reduce cumulative noise impacts from stationary noise sources to a less than significant level. Short-term construction noise and vibration is a localized activity and would affect only land uses that are immediately adjacent to a specific project site. Such impacts are anticipated to be less than cumulatively considerable with implementation of the GP policies and actions.

The proposed project’s long-term operational mobile and stationary noise impacts were determined to be within the applicable thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute considerably to peculiar cumulative noise impacts. Related cumulative projects Table 4.21-1 would be required to comply with applicable noise and vibration standards, and regulations to minimize noise and vibration impacts. Therefore, the proposed project, considered with the related cumulative projects, would not result in peculiar cumulative noise impacts.

There are no ongoing or planned construction activities near the project site that would contribute to cumulative vibration impacts. In addition, ground borne vibration generated at the site during construction would not be in exceedance of the Caltrans threshold of 0.25 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV) and long-term vibration impacts from operations at the site would not be peculiar to the project. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new cumulative impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
The GPEIR determined that, with implementation of GP policies and actions intended to guide growth to appropriate areas and provide services necessary to accommodate growth, the land uses allowed under the GP, the infrastructure anticipated to accommodate proposed land uses, and the goal and policy framework would not induce growth that would exceed adopted thresholds. GP implementation would also not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Impacts would be less than cumulatively significant.

The additional 1,573 population increase generated from the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth. The GP Land Use Map designates the project area as Low Density Residential. The proposed project is consistent with the GP and the population increase generated by the project would be accounted for in the City’s GP growth projections and SCAG regional population forecasts. Additionally, the project would not construct any new roads or major infrastructure in locations that are not planned for growth, and therefore, would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the project area, either directly or indirectly.

Cumulative development projects identified in Table 4.21-1 would be evaluated for housing and population impacts and development would be required to be consistent with adopted state and city development standards, regulations, plans, and policies to minimize the effect of the increase in population on physical impacts on the environment. The proposed project, combined with related projects, would not result in peculiar cumulative impacts to population and housing. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new cumulative impacts,

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 658 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 4.21-13 Mandatory Findings of Significance increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

PUBLIC SERVICES
The GPEIR determined that the GP includes policies to ensure that fire protection and law enforcement services keep pace with new development and that school, library, and governmental services are adequately planned and provided. Payment of applicable impact fees, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by the future projects, would ensure that the City maintains acceptable service ratios. The GP’s incremental contribution to cumulative public services and recreation impacts would be less than significant.

Fire Protection
The project and related cumulative development projects would receive fire protection services from the Riverside County Fire Department. The project would not require the expansion of fire protection facilities or services. Further, the project would be designed in compliance with the California Building Code, California Fire Code, and would be reviewed by the Riverside County Fire Department to ensure it has been designed in compliance with fire protection safety requirements. The project’s impacts to fire protection services would not be peculiar. Additionally, cumulative development projects would be subject to all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations in place for fire protection and emergency services. The Riverside County Fire Department would review all cumulative development to ensure adequate site access, fire flow, sprinkler systems, hydrant spacing, turning radii, among other required fire protection safety criteria. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new cumulative impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Police Protection
The project would be required to comply with the Riverside Sherriff’s Department Codes and would be reviewed by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department to ensure that the project complies. The project would be required to pay Public Facility Impact Fees to help off-set the cost for the maintenance of existing public facilities and the construction of new public facilities which reduce potential cumulative impacts.

Through City reviews, the Riverside County Sherriff’s Department would review the cumulative development project to ensure it meets Riverside County Sheriff Department Code standards and requirements. The cumulative project would be required to pay Public Facility Impact Fees to help offset the cost for the maintenance of existing public facilities and the construction of new public facilities which would reduce potential cumulative impacts. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new cumulative impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

School Services
The proposed project would incrementally increase the enrollment of students and the use of SJUSD facilities. As identified in Section 4.15, Public Services, the proposed project would be required to pay development fees prior to issuance of a building permit to offset the cost of providing school services and facilities. Related development projects would be evaluated for potential impacts to schools and would be required to pay development fees to fund existing and future school facilities. With

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 659 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 4.21-14 Mandatory Findings of Significance coordination with SJUSD and the payment of development fees, potential cumulative impacts to school services would not be peculiar. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new cumulative impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

RECREATION
The GPEIR determined that the significance of impacts to recreational and park facilities resulting from specific future development would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis. If future project-level impacts are identified, specific mitigation measures may be required by CEQA. Therefore, adverse physical impacts to the environment as a result of newly constructed parks and recreational facilities associated with implementation of the GP is considered to be less than significant.

The proposed project includes onsite recreation amenities for residents. The amenities would be in close proximity to residential uses which would make them easily accessible and would discourage residents from seeking recreation facilities located outside of the community. These onsite recreation facilities would reduce the proposed project’s demand for existing recreation facilities in the area and would not accelerate substantial deterioration of existing recreation facilities. Potential impacts associated with the construction of the proposed recreation facilities have been evaluated as part of the proposed project. With the incorporation of City codes and regulations potential impacts associated with the project would not be peculiar. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new cumulative impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

TRANSPORTATION
The GPEIR determined that the GP is not expected to increase VMT per person above No Project conditions. Therefore, the GP’s VMT-related impacts would be considered less than significant. Future development projects would be reviewed for adequate access as well as consistency with adopted emergency and evacuation plans to ensure the safety of City residents and the physical environment.

In addition, the GP Safety and Mobility Elements contain policies in support of emergency access along local roads. The GP would not result in cumulatively considerable transportation impacts with implementation of GP goals and policies. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The traffic study prepared for the project included both project traffic impacts and cumulative traffic impacts from the list of related development projects in Table 4.21-1. Additionally, the traffic analysis included a 2% ambient growth rate for the project area. As discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation, the project’s long-term cumulative traffic impacts on project roadway segments, intersections, and freeway ramps were determined not to be peculiar because LOS/vehicle travel delay is no longer considered an environmental impact under the CEQA. In addition, based on the results of the WRCOG VMT Screening Tool, the proposed project’s TAZ VMT is quantified to be 29.0 which is less than the City’s Threshold of Significance of 33.6 VMT. Therefore, the project’s incremental contribution to VMT is not considered peculiar. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new cumulative impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 660 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 4.21-15 Mandatory Findings of Significance

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The GPEIR determined that tribal cultural resource impacts are site specific and generally do not combine to result in cumulative impacts. Adherence to the GP policies and actions, and existing federal, State and local regulations would avoid and/or minimize a cumulative loss of tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the GP’s incremental contribution to cumulative tribal cultural resource impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

The proposed project would be required to comply with Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards CR-1 through CR-6 (consistent with GP Action RM-3c, Action RM-3d, and Action RM-3g), which requires project monitoring by an archaeologist and Native American representative and proper consultation with Native American Tribes and the Native American Heritage Commission if subsurface tribal cultural resources are found during construction, excavation, and/or other construction activities in the area. This would minimize any potential loss of important tribal cultural resources that may be discovered at the project site. Compliance with Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards CR-1 through CR-6 would ensure that a peculiar cumulative loss of tribal cultural resources from project construction activities would not occur. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new cumulative impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Water Supply
The GPEIR determined that implementation of the GP along with other cumulative projects would increase demand for water services within the City Water District, EMWD, and/or LHMWD service area. All future development would be subject to all applicable federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations in place for water supply and infrastructure. Further, new development would be required to pay all applicable connection fees and ongoing user fees related to the provision of water services. Therefore, GP implementation would not result in cumulatively considerable water supply and infrastructure impacts.

The proposed project and related cumulative projects would increase water demand within the project area. The EMWD UWMP identifies that the service area would have adequate water supplies for normal, single-dry, and multiple dry years. The final water plan design for the project would be required to comply with EMWD Development Design Manual which provides comprehensive procedural and technical requirements for the planning, design, and construction of EMWD service infrastructure required for new development to ensure water efficient facilities and water conservation measures are incorporated into the project. Overall cumulative impacts on water services would not be peculiar.

Cumulative related development projects identified in Table 4.21-1 would be evaluated for the availability of adequate water supplies and would be required to construct water distribution facilities.

Related projects identified in Table 4.21-1 would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the project level, as they are implemented, for their potential to result in construction-related impacts. All projects would be subject to review and approval by the EMWD and would be subject to compliance with the relevant laws, ordinances, and regulations in place for water facilities. Thus, cumulative impacts concerning the provision of water supplies and construction of water facilities would not be peculiar to the project or other cumulative projects. The project would be consistent with the analysis within

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 661 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 4.21-16 Mandatory Findings of Significance the GPEIR because it would not create new cumulative impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Wastewater
The GPEIR determined that the total amount of projected wastewater flow to EMWD’s San Jacinto Valley RWRF, where San Jacinto sewer water is treated and/or disposed of, for the year 2040 would be approximately 16.4 MGD. The current capacity for the San Jacinto Valley RWRF is 14 MGD and the maximum capacity for the treatment facility is 27 MGD. Therefore, the ultimate capacity of the facility would be able to meet the projected wastewater production from the City. Future wastewater facilities would require a separate environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time to address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new wastewater facilities. Additionally, the GP includes goals, policies, and actions to ensure adequate wastewater services and facilities. Cumulative impacts to wastewater services and facilities would be less than significant.

Wastewater treatment service for the project would be provided by the San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Plant which currently has an ultimate capacity of 27 million gallons per day. Therefore, the project would not result in significant wastewater treatment capacity impacts. Additionally, as part of the final design, the proposed project would be required to coordinate with EMWD and secure a Will Serve Letter which would ensure that the EMWD would have the ability to provide adequate wastewater service to the proposed project. The design of the wastewater distribution system would be reviewed by EMWD to ensure that it is adequately sized to meet the long-term operation needs for the project.

Related development projects identified in Table 4.21-1 would also be required to coordinate with EMWD to determine if adequate wastewater treatment capacity would be available and would be required to comply with the relevant regulations. Coordination with EMWD and compliance with relevant laws and regulations would ensure cumulative impacts related to the construction of wastewater facilities would not be peculiar. The project would be consistent with the analysis within the GPEIR because it would not create new cumulative impacts, increase impacts, and there is no new information of substantial importance than identified within the GPEIR.

Stormwater
The GPEIR determined that future stormwater facilities would require a separate environmental review and compliance with regulations in existence at that time to address potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of new stormwater facilities. Additionally, the GP includes goals, policies, and actions to ensure adequate stormwater facilities. Therefore, cumulative impacts to stormwater facilities would be less than significant.

The project and cumulative projects would require construction of stormwater facilities to treat and manage stormwater flows. Facilities onsite would connect to existing facilities currently provided in the project area. Construction connections to offsite facilities would involve some minor trenching.

Potential impacts would be short-term and construction BMPs would be in place to minimize construction related impacts. City public works would be coordinated with on the design/installation of stormwater facilities to ensure they would comply with required construction design standards.

Impacts would not be peculiar to the project. The project would be consistent with the analysis within

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 662 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 4.21-17 Mandatory Findings of Significance 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.

Solid Waste Disposal
The GPEIR determined that the increase in solid waste generation due to future individual and cumulative development projects together could significantly impact solid waste resources. Individual development projects and related cumulative projects would be required to meet current recycling goals, reducing the amount of solid waste requiring disposal at landfills. Future developments would be reviewed on a project‐by‐project basis and solid waste impacts would be evaluated based on existing and planned disposal facilities and capacities available at that time. In addition, all future development would be required to comply with the mandatory commercial and multifamily recycling requirements of AB 341, thus reducing the amount of landfill waste. Furthermore, the GP goals, policies, and actions would reduce the demand for solid waste disposal. Therefore, the contribution of the GP to cumulative impacts associated with increased solid waste would be less than significant.

The proposed project and related development projects would increase demand for solid waste disposal services within the project area. Solid waste disposal for the proposed project would be provided by CR&R Incorporated under a franchise agreement with the City. CR&R collects solid waste and transports it to the Lamb Canyon Landfill. According to City’s GPEIR, the landfill still has capacity remaining. Therefore, the project would not contribute considerably to significant cumulative solid waste disposal impacts. Cumulative related development projects identified in Table 4.21-1 would be required to evaluate whether adequate solid waste disposal service is available and would be subject to conformance with all relevant laws, ordinances, and regulations in place for solid waste disposal.

This includes compliance with AB 939, which requires a 50% diversion of all solid waste from disposal in local landfills, and the 2016 (or most recent) California Green Building Code Standards, which includes design and construction measures that act to reduce construction-related waste through material conservation measures and other construction-related efficiency measures. With compliance with relevant laws, ordinances, and regulations in place for solid waste disposal, cumulative impacts to solid waste 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.

Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
The GPEIR determined that the GP does not include specific development proposals; individual development projects would be required to verify that electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications usage generated with the new development would not create significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the contribution of the GP to cumulative impacts associated with increased electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications would be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would require adding onsite utilities since the project site is currently undeveloped. New onsite utility service systems would be constructed, and they would connect to existing utility systems currently provided in the project area. Construction connections to offsite utility systems would involve some minor trenching. Potential impacts would be short-term and construction BMPs would be in place to minimize construction related impacts. Each utility service provider would be coordinated with on the design/installation of utility systems to ensure they would comply with required construction design standards. With coordination with utility providers and compliance with construction design standards, impacts would not be peculiar to the project. The

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 663 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 4.21-18 Mandatory Findings of Significance 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.

WILDFIRE
The GPEIR determined that the City currently has programs and regulations in place and works in accordance with regional services to provide adequate emergency response to wildfire threats.

Important new and expanded critical facilities would also be located in a way to ensure resiliency and functionality in the event of a natural disaster. GP implementation would not exacerbate wildfire risks in VHFHSZs. Implementation of the GP policies and actions combined with local and State requirements would ensure that potential wildland fire hazards would not be exacerbated by new local infrastructure, and this impact would be considered less than cumulatively significant.

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the project site is not within a High Fire Hazard Area or a State Responsibility Area. The project site is not contiguous to wildland slope conditions that would facilitate the spread of wildfire. The proposed project would be required to comply with local and state fire code requirements to reduce the risks for wildland fire impacts.

Potential wildland fire impacts would not be peculiar to the project.

Related cumulative projects would be evaluated for potential wildland fire risks and would be required to comply with local and state fire code requirements to reduce the risks for wildland fire impacts.

Therefore, cumulative wildfire impacts 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. c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: The proposed project would not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Potential impacts that could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings were analyzed in this Initial Study and include, but are not limited to; air quality, GHG emissions, geology hazards, hazardous materials, seismic hazards, hydrology/water quality, noise, and wildfire. The analysis for each issue area found that there would be either no impacts or impacts were adequately addressed in the GPEIR.

The proposed project would comply with local and regional planning programs, applicable codes, and ordinances, state and federal laws and regulations, and GP policies and actions to ensure that longterm operation activities and short-term construction activities would not result in direct, or indirect adverse impacts to human beings. 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. d) Have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?
Impact Adequately Addressed in the GPEIR: The proposed project would not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. If the proposed project is approved and constructed, a variety of short and long-term impacts would occur. During construction, surrounding land uses could be temporarily impacted by dust and noise.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 664 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 4.21-19 Mandatory Findings of Significance There could also be an increase in vehicle pollutant emissions caused by grading and construction activities and potential generation of degraded surface water. However, these short-term effects would be temporary and would be avoided or lessened to a large degree through compliance with the GP policies and actions, and through standard regulatory requirements. The project would result in long-term environmental consequences associated with a transition in land use from vacant/agricultural land to residential land uses. Long-term operation of the project would change the physical appearance of the project site and would contribute to increased traffic volumes, increased noise from operation of the project, increased amounts of impervious surfaces, and increased energy and natural resource consumption. However, these long-term operational effects would not be peculiar to the project. Impacts would be reduced through compliance with the GP policies and actions, and through standard regulatory requirements. 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. 427 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 665 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 4.21-20 Mandatory Findings of Significance This page was intentionally left blank.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 666 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 4.22-1 References

4.22 References
The following references were utilized during preparation of this Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist These documents are available for review at the City of San Jacinto, Community Development Department – Planning Division, 595 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto, California 92583.

Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering. Preliminary Hydrology Study. Revised May 5, 2022.

Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering. Preliminary Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan.

January 20, 2022.

CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Department, Correspondence with Adria Reinertson, Deputy Fire Marshal, dated June 24, 2022.

CAL FIRE. Fire and Resource Assessment Program, San Jacinto Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Exported on January 7, 2022.

California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2022. Accessed at <https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp> on October 27, 2023.

City of San Jacinto. City of San Jacinto 2021-2029 Housing Element. Adopted February 1, 2022.

City of San Jacinto. City of San Jacinto 2040 General Plan. Adopted November 15, 2022.

City of San Jacinto. City of San Jacinto 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2020120312. November 15, 2022.

City of San Jacinto. Zoning/Development Code. Adopted December 2012 and as Amended through December 2022.

City of San Jacinto. Zoning Map. 2022.

Eastern Municipal Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. July 1, 2021.

Eastern Municipal Water District. San Jacinto Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. January 2021.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette. Exported on September 29, 2023.

Hillmann Consulting. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, December 22, 2020.

LGC Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Subsurface Evaluation for the Proposed “McLeish Ranch” Residential Development. December 21, 2021.

RK Engineering Group, Inc. McLeish Ranch Residential Project Traffic Impact Study. June 1, 2022.

San Jacinto Unified School District. Correspondence with Alexander Adame, Facilities & Operations Facilities Planner. September 16, 2022.

Southern California Association of Governments. Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. Adopted April 2016.

State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. Exported on May 16, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 667 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 4.22-2 References
VCS Environmental. Biological Technical Report for the McLeish Ranch Residential Project. November 2024.

VCS Environmental. Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment McLeish Ranch Residential Project, July 2022, updated October 2024.

Vista Environmental. Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis – McLeish Ranch Residential Project. September 14, 2023.

Vista Environmental. Noise Impact Analysis – McLeish Ranch Residential Project. October 31, 2022.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 668 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 5-1 Uniformly Applied Development Policies or StandardsInventory

5.0 UNIFORMLY APPLIED DEVELOPMENT POLICIES OR

STANDARDS INVENTORY

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
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.

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

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 669 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 5-2 Uniformly Applied Development Policies or StandardsInventory 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.

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

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 670 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 5-3 Uniformly Applied Development Policies or StandardsInventory 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.

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.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
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

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 671 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 5-4 Uniformly Applied Development Policies or StandardsInventory 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 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

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 672 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 5-5 Uniformly Applied Development Policies or StandardsInventory 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 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.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
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.

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.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Uniformly Applied Development Policies or Standards CR-1 through CR-6 are required.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 673 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 5-6 Uniformly Applied Development Policies or StandardsInventory This page was intentionally left blank.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 674 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 6-1 Report Preparation Personnel

6.0 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL

6.1 Lead Agency

CITY OF SAN JACINTO (LEAD AGENCY)
Community Development Department – Planning Division
595 S. San Jacinto Avenue
San Jacinto, California 92583
Kevin White, Planning Manager
Robert Flores, Senior Planner
Steven Valdez, Principal Planner
Mathew Osborn, Water Utilities Superintendent

6.2 Preparers of the Modified Initial Study/CEQA 15183 Checklist

VCS ENVIRONMENTAL (ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS)
30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
Julie Beeman, Project Manager
Dan Bott, Senior Environmental Analyst
Eric Turner, Senior Environmental Analyst
Andrea Zullo, Environmental Planner
Valerie Flores, Environmental Planner
Linda Bo, Production Coordinator
Willa Sumer, GIS Specialist
Patrick Maxon, RPA, Archaeologist
Wade Caffrey, Biologist
Sierra Valladares, Biologist
CJ Fotheringham, Ph.D., Botanist

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 675 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 6-2 Report Preparation Personnel
This page was intentionally left blank.

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

TECHNICAL APPENDICES

4.1.i
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 677 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

APPENDICES
[Please note that the following 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. 440 Attachment: McLeish Ranch 15183 Checklist (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

APPENDIX A
Air Quality, Energy, and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis

4.1.j
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Appendix A - Air Energy GHG Report (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

4.1.j
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Appendix A - Air Energy GHG Report (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

AIR QUALITY, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS IMPACT ANALYSIS

MCLEISH RANCH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT

CITY OF SAN JACINTO
Lead Agency:

City of San Jacinto
Planning Division
Community Development Department
595 South San Jacinto Avenue
San Jacinto, CA 92583
Prepared by:

Vista Environmental
1021 Didrickson Way
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
949 510 5355
Greg Tonkovich, AICP
Project No. 21123
September 14, 2023

4.1.j
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Appendix A - Air Energy GHG Report (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) McLeish Ranch Residential Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of San Jacinto
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives................................................................................. 1

1.2 Site Locations and Study Area.................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Proposed Project Description .................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... 2

1.5 Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project ......................................................................... 3

2.0 Air Pollutants.........................................................................................................................6

2.1 Criteria Pollutants and Ozone Precursors.................................................................................. 6

2.2 Other Pollutants of Concern ...................................................................................................... 8

3.0 Greenhouse Gases...............................................................................................................10

3.1 Greenhouse Gases................................................................................................................... 10

3.2 Global Warming Potential........................................................................................................ 12

3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory...................................................................................... 13

4.0 Air Quality Management......................................................................................................14

4.1 Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency..................................................... 14

4.2 State – California Air Resources Board .................................................................................... 17

4.3 Regional – Southern California ................................................................................................ 18

4.4 Local – City of San Jacinto........................................................................................................ 21

5.0 Energy Conservation Management.......................................................................................23

5.1 State......................................................................................................................................... 23

5.2 Local - City of San Jacinto......................................................................................................... 26

6.0 Global Climate Change Management....................................................................................27

6.1 International ............................................................................................................................ 27

6.2 Federal – United States Environmental Protection Agency..................................................... 27

6.3 State......................................................................................................................................... 28

6.4 Regional – Southern California ................................................................................................ 33

6.5 Local – City of San Jacinto........................................................................................................ 34

7.0 Atmospheric Setting.............................................................................................................35

7.1 South Coast Air Basin............................................................................................................... 35

7.2 Local Climate............................................................................................................................ 35

7.3 Monitored Local Air Quality..................................................................................................... 36

7.4 Toxic Air Contaminant Levels................................................................................................... 38

8.0 Modeling Parameters and Assumptions................................................................................40

8.1 CalEEMod Model Input Parameters ........................................................................................ 40

8.2 Energy Use Calculations........................................................................................................... 43

4.1.j
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Appendix A - Air Energy GHG Report (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) McLeish Ranch Residential Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of San Jacinto
Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

9.0 Thresholds of Significance ....................................................................................................47

9.1 Regional Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 47

9.2 Local Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 47

9.3 Toxic Air Contaminants............................................................................................................ 49

9.4 Odor Impacts............................................................................................................................ 49

9.5 Energy Conservation................................................................................................................ 49

9.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................................................................... 50

10.0 Impact Analysis....................................................................................................................51

10.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................................... 51

10.2 Air Quality Compliance .......................................................................................................... 51

10.3 Cumulative Net Increase in Non-Attainment Pollution......................................................... 53

10.4 Sensitive Receptors................................................................................................................ 58

10.5 Odor Emissions ...................................................................................................................... 60

10.6 Energy Consumption.............................................................................................................. 61

10.7 Energy Plan Consistency ........................................................................................................ 65

10.8 Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................. 66

11.0 References...........................................................................................................................68

APPENDICES
Appendix A – CalEEMod Model Printouts
Appendix B – EMFAC2017 Model Printouts

4.1.j
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Appendix A - Air Energy GHG Report (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) McLeish Ranch Residential Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of San Jacinto
Page iii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Project Local Study Area .............................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2 – Proposed Site Plan ....................................................................................................................... 5

LIST OF TABLES
Table A – Global Warming Potentials, Atmospheric Lifetimes and Abundances of GHGs......................... 12 Table B – State and Federal Criteria Pollutant Standards........................................................................... 14 Table C – National Air Quality Standards Attainment Status – South Coast Air Basin ............................... 16 Table D – California Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment Status – South Coast Air Basin .............. 17 Table E – Monthly Climate Data ................................................................................................................. 36 Table F – Local Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary............................................................................... 37 Table G – CalEEMod Land Use Parameters................................................................................................. 40 Table H – Off-Road Equipment and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project........ 44 Table I – On-Road Vehicle Trips and Fuel Consumption from Construction of the Proposed Project....... 45 Table J – SCAQMD Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance ................................. 47 Table K – Construction Equipment Modeled in CalEEMod and Acres Disturbed per Day.......................... 48 Table L – SCAQMD Local Air Quality Thresholds of Significance ................................................................ 49 Table M – Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions.................................................................... 54 Table N – Operational Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions..................................................................... 55 Table O – Operations-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions.............................................................. 57 Table P – Proposed Project Compliance with Applicable General Plan Energy Policies............................. 65 Table Q – Project Related Greenhouse Gas Annual Emissions................................................................... 67

4.1.j
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Appendix A - Air Energy GHG Report (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) McLeish Ranch Residential Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of San Jacinto
Page iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
Air Basin South Coast Air Basin
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BSFC Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
Cf4 tetrafluoromethane
C2F6 hexafluoroethane
CH4 Methane
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
City City of San Jacinto
DPM Diesel particulate matter
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ºF Fahrenheit
FTIP Federal Transportation Improvement Program
GHG Greenhouse gas
GWP Global warming potential
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
IPCC International Panel on Climate Change
kWhr kilowatt-hour
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard

4.1.j
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Appendix A - Air Energy GHG Report (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) McLeish Ranch Residential Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of San Jacinto
Page v
LST Localized Significant Thresholds
MATES Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study
MMTCO2e Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MWh Megawatt-hour
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOx Nitrogen oxides
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
OPR Office of Planning and Research
Pfc Perfluorocarbons
PM Particle matter
PM10 Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter PM2.5 Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter PPM Parts per million
PPB Parts per billion
PPT Parts per trillion
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SB Senate Bill
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOx Sulfur oxides
TAC Toxic air contaminants
UNFCCC United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change VOC Volatile organic compounds

4.1.j
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Appendix A - Air Energy GHG Report (McLeish Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022))

5.1.i
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Planning Commission Staff Report (McLeish Ranch Planned Development Permit & Tentative Tract Map 38203 (P22-022)) McLeish Ranch Residential Project, Air Quality, Energy, and GHG Emissions Impact Analysis City of San Jacinto