Phase IV
5.9-d The following measures shall be implemented prior to issuance of the final remaining commercial building permits and as depicted on Figure 5.9-8:
• Construct Cawston Avenue at its ultimate half-section width as a secondary roadway from Bridge Street to De Anza Drive in conjunction with Phase IV development. • Construct Bridge Street at its ultimate full-section width as a secondary roadway from Cawston Avenue to Street "A" in conjunction with Phase IV development. • Construct the remaining half of Bridge Street as a secondary roadway from Street "A" to Sanderson Avenue in conjunction with Phase IV development. • Driveway 10 at Bridge Street shall be restricted to right in/right out only access.
5.9 TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.9-62
• Driveway 12 at Bridge Street shall be restricted to right in/right out only access. • Driveway 16 at Sanderson Avenue shall be restricted to right in/right out only access. • Construct traffic signals at the following intersections in conjunction with Phase IV of the development:
o Driveway 3 (NS) at:
Ramona Boulevard (EW) (Only if High School is constructed) o Street "A"/Driveway 11 (NS) at:
Bridge Street (EW)
o Street "B"/Driveway 13 (NS) at:
Bridge Street (EW).
• Participate in fair share fees to construct a traffic signal at the following intersection in conjunction with Phase IV of the development:
o Cawston Avenue (NS) at:
Bridge Street (EW).
• Provide stop sign, stop bar, and stop legend at all project driveways that intersect with public roadways and do not meet traffic signal warrants. • Sight distance at each project access shall be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of San Jacinto sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading landscape and street improvement plans.
• On-site traffic signing and striping shall be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site.
5.9-e Because the project, along with many others in the area, is contributing to the city-wide need for street improvements, the project will need to contribute to the Riverside County TUMF and City of San Jacinto DIF programs. As discussed in Section 5.9.2, these fees are collected as part of a funding mechanism aimed at ensuring that local and regional highway capacity keeps pace with projected growth throughout the area. Eligible facilities for funding by the City's DIF program are identified on the City's Facility Needs List, which currently extends through the year 2020. Table 5.9-17, Estimated TUMF and DIF Fee Calculations, includes estimated fee calculations for the proposed project based on current fee rates.
5.9 TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.9-63
Table 5.9-17
Estimated TUMF and DIF Fee Calculations
5.9 TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.9-64
Many off-site circulation improvements required as a result of project impacts would be mitigated through participation in the TUMF fee program. Many of the off-site improvements that are needed will be planned, designed and constructed by the City, Riverside County Transportation Department, Riverside County Transportation Commission, other cities or a combination of the above.
In order to ensure that all off-site traffic improvements are constructed by the City (or the County/RCTC), prior to construction of specific project phases, the City shall ensure that the improvements are made to compensate for the project's contribution to off-site circulation issues. The project applicant's payment of TUMF and DIF fees will allow the financing mechanism to conduct such improvements.
5.9-f The contractor for each phase of the project shall be required to prepare and implement a traffic control plan (TCP) in order to monitor construction equipment, deliveries and construction worker traffic to eliminate any potential hazards to surrounding roadways due to abnormally high traffic into or out of the site for a concentrated period of time. Each traffic control plan shall outline when flagging operations may be necessary (during large construction equipment arrival or deportation, etc.).
5.9.6 Residual Impacts/Level of Significance after Mitigation Access and On-Site Circulation
With implementation of the mitigation measures included in Section 5.9.5, Mitigation Measures, to ensure that adequate and safe site access and circulation design is provided for the proposed development, potential impacts relative to site access and circulation, and emergency access, would be less than significant.
Cumulative Traffic Impacts/ Regional Mitigation Programs Implementation of the mitigation measures included in Section 5.9.5, Mitigation Measures, would ensure that regional traffic conditions do not dip below an acceptable LOS (LOS D) for existing plus project conditions. However, without completion of the Mid-County Parkway and SR-79 projects, the project would contribute to a cumulative significant impact. There is no feasible mitigation for this significant cumulative impact due to exceedance of General Plan roadway criteria (e.g., triple left turn lanes) and due to the uncertainty of obtaining adequate right-of-way for such measures. Therefore, because the City can not guarantee that regional improvements would be implemented prior to completion of the project, a significant unmitigable cumulative traffic impact would occur. That said, it should be noted that the unacceptable LOS conditions would occur with or without the project under cumulative conditions in the absence of the Mid-County Parkway and SR-79 improvements.
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-1
5.10 AIR QUALITY
5.10.1 Introduction and Methodology
This section evaluates short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) impacts to air quality that would potentially occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project.
Impacts are evaluated for their significance based on the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) enumerated environmental thresholds. Mitigation measures required to reduce impacts are recommended as appropriate. However, impacts associated with construction and operation would remain significant after mitigation. Technical information related to the analysis below is contained in Appendix I to this EIR.
5.10.2 Existing Conditions
Regional Air Quality and Climate/Meteorology
The project site is located in western Riverside County within the City of San Jacinto, which lies at an elevation of approximately 1,567 feet. The natural topography of the project area can best be described as lying in valley lowland, intersected with rolling hills and surrounded by the Santa Ana Mountains to the west and the San Jacinto Mountains to the east. This project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. Air quality conditions in the SCAB are under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD regulates stationary sources of pollution throughout its jurisdictional area. Direct emissions from motor vehicles are regulated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Climate/Meteorology
Air quality in the planning area is not only affected by various emission sources (e.g., mobile, industry), but is also affected by atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and rainfall, etc. The SCAB's combination of topography, low mean mixing height, abundant sunshine, and emissions from one of the largest urban areas in the United States have historically resulted in some of the worst air pollution in the nation.
Although the SCAB has a semi-arid climate, air near the surface is generally moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. With very low average wind speeds, there is a limited capacity to disperse air contaminants horizontally. The dominant daily wind pattern is an onshore 8 to 12 miles per hour daytime breeze and an offshore 3 to 5 miles per hour nighttime breeze.
The typical wind flow pattern fluctuates only with occasional winter storms, or strong northeasterly Santa Ana winds from the mountains and deserts northeast of the SCAB. Summer
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-2
wind flow patterns represent worst-case conditions, as this is the period of higher temperatures and more sunlight, which results in ozone formation.
The San Jacinto area climate is characterized by relatively low rainfall, with warm summers and mild winters. Annual precipitation averages about 13 inches, with over 70% of that falling between December and March. Average monthly temperatures range from a high of 98 degrees Fahrenheit in August to a low of 37 degrees Fahrenheit in December (City-Data.com, Accessed June 6, 2005).
During spring and early summer, pollution produced during any one day is typically blown out of the SCAB through mountain passes or lifted by warm, vertical currents adjacent to mountain slopes. The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SCAB is limited by temperature inversions in the atmosphere close to the earth's surface. The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest pollutant concentrations. On days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants generated in urbanized areas are transported predominantly onshore into Riverside and San Bernardino counties. In the winter, the greatest pollution problems are carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide because of extremely low inversions and air stagnation during the night and early morning hours. In the summer, the longer daylight hours and the brighter sunshine combine to cause a reaction between hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen to form photochemical smog.
Air Quality Characteristics
Air quality varies as a direct function of the amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin and the prevailing meteorological conditions. Air quality problems arise when the rate of pollutant emissions exceeds the rate of dispersion. Reduced visibility, eye irritation, and adverse health impacts upon those persons termed sensitive receptors are the most serious hazards of existing air quality conditions in the area. Sensitive receptors are those persons under 5 years of age, or older than 65, and/or persons with health problems; consequently sensitive receptors include hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, and retirement facilities. There are no sensitive receptors currently located adjacent to the proposed project site. However, some existing residential development is located south and southeast of the project site, and some residential developments are currently under construction to the southwest, southeast, south, and east of the proposed project site. Lastly, several parcels adjacent to the proposed project site to the north and northeast may include future residential development during the construction and operational phases of the proposed project. The existing, near-term (under construction) and potential future sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project are shown in Figure 5.10-1.
SOURCE: City of San Jacinto (2009), Riverside TL¯ A (2008) FIGURE Villages of San Jacinto EIR
Sensitive Receptors 5.10-1
Legend
City Boundary
Vacant Parcels
Existing Sensitive Receptors
Near-term Sensitive Receptors
Future Sensitive Receptors
Project Site
BYRD ST
DEEGAN ST
SCOTT ST
VERNAL ST
WARREN RD
NELSON AVE
ODELL AVE
SANDERSON AVE
POTTER RD
SP 1-07
SAN JACINTO RANCH
VTR 32853 PM 31522 CUP 15-08
PM 32701 VPM 31281
THE FESTIVAL
SP 1-08
PM 36012
PM 30617
SR 1-08 SR 3-06
TR 32843
TR 31544 TR 32182
PM 29447
TR 33408
TR 31806
SP 2-06
VILLAGE PARK
TR 34081
SP 1-04
TR 30814
PM 32061
TR 31555
TR 34858
TR 30481
TR 31296
TR 30335
LORETO ST
TR 30813
LA BOCA ST
PM 35626
PM 35888
TR 33420
CUP 1-08
BAILEY LN
JULIAN AVE
Z:\Projects\j430701\Figs_EIR\Section 5\EIR_Fig5_10-1_sensitive_receptors.mxd
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-4
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-5
Additional discussion of sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site is provided in the Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis in Appendix I.
Primary criteria pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., an automobile) into the atmosphere and include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter. Particulate matter is generally comprised of inert particles that become airborne, such as dust or ash. Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter is referred to as PM10; particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter is referred to as PM2.5. VOCs are also a primary pollutant, but are not a "criteria" pollutant (see discussion below). Secondary pollutants are created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone (O3), particulate matter, and sulfate particulates.
Global Climate Change
The Earth's climate has undergone many changes during its history, ranging from ice ages to long periods of warmth. Natural factors such as volcanic eruptions, changes in the Earth's orbit, and the amount of energy from the sun have affected global temperatures and thus the Earth's climate. Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer) (EPA 2008a). The term climate change is often used interchangeably with the term global warming; however, the phrase "climate change" is preferred as it helps convey that there are other changes in addition to rising temperatures (NAS 2008).
Environmental Setting
The Greenhouse Effect and Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
Heat retention within the atmosphere is an essential process to sustain life on Earth. The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere1 is called the "greenhouse effect." The
greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a three-fold process as follows: shortwave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long-wave radiation; and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the upper atmosphere absorb this long-wave radiation and emit this long-wave radiation into space and toward the Earth. This "trapping" of the long-wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect. This natural process contributes to regulating the earth's temperature without which the temperature of the Earth would be about
1 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth's surface to 10 to 12 kilometers).
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-6
zero degrees Fahrenheit (-18 degrees Celsius) instead of its present 57 degrees Fahrenheit (14 degrees Celsius) (NCDC 2008).
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called GHGs. Principal GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), and water vapor (H2O). Some GHGs, such as CO2, CH4, and N2O, occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Man-made GHGs, which have a much greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which are byproducts of certain industrial processes. The major GHGs emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries; therefore, it is virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of GHGs will continue to rise over the next few decades (EPA 2007).
It is generally agreed that human activity has been increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas, and a few other trace gases) (NCDC 2008). The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005 (IPCC WGI 2007). Based on current rates of increase, carbon dioxide concentrations could reach between 490 to 1260 ppm by the end of the 21st century, 75 to 350% above the pre-industrial concentration (IPCC 2001).
A warming trend of approximately 1.0 to 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit occurred during the 20th century; warming occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC WGI 2007). Most of the warming in recent decades is very likely the result of human activities (IPCC WGI 2007). There is much uncertainty, however, concerning the magnitude and rate of the warming. Specifically, the EPA notes that "important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system, including precipitation patterns and storms" (EPA 2007).
The effect each GHG has on climate change is measured as a combination of the volume or mass of its emissions, and the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere, known as its global warming potential (GWP), and is expressed as a function of how much warming would be caused by the same mass of CO2. Thus, GHG gas emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of "carbon dioxide equivalent" (CO2E).
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-7
Contributions to Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Global
Anthropogenic GHG emissions worldwide in 2005 totaled approximately 41,100 CO2 equivalent million metric tons (MMTCO2E)2
(CAIT 2009). Six countries—China, United States, Russian Federation, India, Japan, Brazil—and the European Community accounted for approximately 60% of the total global emissions, approximately 25,000 MMTCO2E (CAIT 2009).
United States
The United States was the second highest producer of GHG emissions in 2005. The primary GHG emitted by human activities in the United States was CO2, representing approximately 84% of total GHG emissions. Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion, the largest source of United States GHG emissions, accounted for approximately 80% of United States GHG emissions (EPA 2008b).
State of California
According to the 2004 GHG inventory data compiled by CARB for the California 1990 GHG emissions inventory, California emitted emissions of 484 MMTCO2E, including emission resulting from out-of-state electrical generation (CARB 2007b). The primary contributors to GHG emissions in California are transportation, electric power production from both in-state and out-of-state sources, industry, agriculture and forestry, and other sources, which include commercial and residential activities. These primary contributors to California's GHG emissions and their relative contributions in 2004 are presented in Table 5.10-1, GHG Sources in California.
2 The CO2 equivalent emissions on a global or national scale are commonly expressed as "million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E)" The carbon dioxide equivalent for a gas is derived by multiplying the tons of the gas by the associated GWP, such that MMTCO2E = (million metric tons of a GHG) x (GWP of the GHG). For example, the GWP for methane is 21. This means that emissions of one million metric tons of methane are equivalent to emissions of 21 million metric tons of CO2.
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-8
Table 5.10-1
GHG Sources in California 1
Source Category
Annual GHG Emissions
(MMTCO2E) a
Percent
of Total
Annual GHG Emissions
(MMTCO2E) b Percent of Total
Agriculture 27.9 5.8% 27.9 6.6%
Commercial Uses 12.8 2.6% 12.8 3.0%
Electricity Generation 119.8 24.7% 58.5 13.8%
Forestry (excluding sinks) 0.2 0.0% 0.2 0.0%
Industrial Uses 96.2 19.9% 96.2 22.7%
Residential Uses 29.1 6.0% 29.1 6.9%
Transportation 182.4 37.7% 182.4 43.1%
Other c 16.0 3.3% 16.0 3.8%
Totals 484.4 100.0% 423.1 100.0%
1 SOURCES: CARB 2007 a Includes emissions associated with imported electricity, which account for 61.3 MMTCO2E annually b Excludes emissions associated with imported electricity c Unspecified combustion and use of ozone-depleting substances Potential Effects of Human Activity on Climate Change
Globally, climate change has the potential to impact numerous environmental resources though uncertain impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Scientific modeling predicts that continued emissions of GHGs at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the 21st century than were observed during the 20th century. A warming of about 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade is projected, and there are identifiable signs that global warming could be taking place, including substantial ice loss in the Arctic (IPCC WGI 2007).
However, the scientific understanding of the effect of GHG emissions, particulate matter, and aerosols on global climate trends remains uncertain. In addition to uncertainties about the extent to which human activity rather than solar or volcanic activity is responsible for increasing warming, there is also evidence that some human activity has cooling rather than warming effects (IPCC 2001).
Below is a summary of some of the potential effects reported by an array of studies that could be experienced in California as a result of global warming and climate change.
Air Quality
Higher temperatures, conducive to air pollution formation, could worsen air quality in California.
Climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the magnitude of the effect, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. For other pollutants, the effects of climate
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-9
change and/or weather are less well studied, and even less well understood. If higher temperatures are accompanied by drier conditions, the potential for large wildfires could increase, which, in turn, would further worsen air quality. However, if higher temperatures are accompanied by wetter, rather than drier conditions, the rains would tend to temporarily clear the air of particulate pollution and reduce the incidence of large wildfires, thus ameliorating the pollution associated with wildfires. Additionally, severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the state (CCCC 2006).
Water Supply
Uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of global climate change on future water supplies in California. Studies have found that, "considerable uncertainty about precise impacts of climate change on California hydrology and water resources will remain until we have more precise and consistent information about how precipitation patterns, timing, and intensity will change" (Kiparsky and Gleck 2003). Even assuming that climate change leads to long-term increases in precipitation, analysis of the impact of climate change is further complicated by the fact that no studies have identified or quantified the runoff impacts such an increase in precipitation would have in particular watersheds (CCCC 2006). Also, little is known about how groundwater recharge and water quality will be affected. Higher rainfall could lead to greater groundwater recharge, although reductions in spring runoff and higher evapotranspiration could reduce the amount of water available for recharge (CCCC 2006).
The California Department of Water Resources report on climate change and effects on the State Water Project, the Central Valley Project, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta concludes that "climate change will likely have a significant effect on California's future water resources [and] future water demand," yet it also reports that much uncertainty about future water demand remains (DWR 2006). Still, changes in water supply are expected to occur, and many regional studies have shown that large changes in the reliability of water yields from reservoirs could result from only small changes in inflows (Kiparsky and Gleck 2003).
Hydrology
As discussed above, climate changes could potentially affect: the amount of snowfall, rainfall and snow pack; the intensity and frequency of storms; flood hydrographs (flash floods, rain or snow events, coincidental high tide and high runoff events); sea level rise and coastal flooding; coastal erosion; and the potential for salt water intrusion. A rise in sea levels could result in coastal flooding and erosion and could jeopardize California's water supply. Increased storm intensity and frequency could affect the ability of flood-control facilities, including levees, to handle storm events.
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-10
Agriculture
California has a $30 billion agricultural industry that produces half the country's fruits and vegetables. Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, water demand could increase; crop-yield could be threatened by a less reliable water supply; and greater ozone pollution could render plants more susceptible to pest and disease outbreaks (CCCC 2006).
Ecosystems and Wildlife
Increases in global temperatures and the potential resulting changes in weather patterns could have ecological effects on a global and local scale. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent, and sea level could rise as much as two feet along most of the United States coast. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals: (1) timing of ecological events; (2) geographic range; (3) species' composition within communities; and (4) ecosystem processes such as carbon cycling and storage (Parmesan and Galbraith 2004).
Regulatory Setting
Federal
The federal Clean Air Act, passed in 1970 and last amended in 1990, forms the basis for the national air pollution control effort. The EPA is responsible for implementing most aspects of the Clean Air Act, which include National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for major air pollutants, hazardous air pollutant standards, approval of state attainment plans, motor vehicle emission standards, stationary source emission standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric ozone protection, and enforcement provisions. NAAQS are established for "criteria pollutants" under the Clean Air Act, which are O3, CO, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), PM10, PM2.5, and lead (Pb).
The NAAQS describe acceptable air quality conditions designed to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of the nation; these NAAQS may not be exceeded more than once a year, except annual standards, which may never be exceeded. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to reassess the NAAQS at least every 5 years to determine whether adopted standards are adequate to protect public health based on current scientific evidence. States with areas that exceed the NAAQS must prepare a State Implementation Plan that demonstrates how those areas will attain the standards within mandated time frames.
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-11
State
The Clean Air Act delegates the regulation of air pollution control and the enforcement of the NAAQS to the states. In California, the task of air quality management and regulation has been legislatively granted to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), with subsidiary responsibilities assigned to AQMDs and air pollution control districts at the regional and county levels. CARB, which became part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988, responding to the federal Clean Air Act, and regulating emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products.
CARB has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which are more restrictive than the NAAQS, consistent with the Clean Air Act, which requires state regulations to be at least as restrictive as the federal requirements. The CAAQS describe adverse conditions; that is, pollution levels must be below these standards before a basin can attain the standard. Air quality is considered in "attainment" if pollutant levels are continuously below the standards and violate the standards no more than once each year. The NAAQS and CAAQS are presented in Table 5.10-2, California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Table 5.10-2
California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Standards b
Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards a,c Primary c,d Secondary c,e 1-hour 0.09 ppm
(180 μg/m3) — Same as primary
Ozone (O3)
8-hour 0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)
0.075 ppm
(147 μg/m3) Same as primary
8-hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3) —
Carbon monoxide (CO)
1-hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3) —
Annual 0.030 ppm
(57 μg/m3)
0.053 ppm
(100 μg/m3) Same as primary
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
1-hour 0.18 ppm
(339 μg/m3) — —
Annual — 0.030 ppm
(80 μg/m3) —
24-hour 0.04 ppm
(105 μg/m3)
0.14 ppm
(365 μg/m3) —
3-hour — — 0.5 ppm
(1,300 μg/m3)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
1-hour 0.25 ppm
(655 μg/m3) — —
Annual 20 μg/m3 Respirable Particulate * — Same as primary Matter (PM10) 24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Same as primary Annual 12 μg/m3 ** 15.0 μg/m3 Fine Particulate Same as primary Matter (PM2.5) 24-hour — 35 μg/m3 Same as primary
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Table 5.10-2 (Continued)
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-12
National Standards b
Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards a,c Primary c,d Secondary c,e 30-day 1.5 μg/m3 — — Lead Quarterly — 1.5 μg/m3 Same as primary Hydrogen sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3) — —
Vinyl chloride 24-Hour 0.01 ppm
(26 ȝg/m3) — —
Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/m3 — —
Visibility reducing
particles f
8-hour
(10:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. PST)
In sufficient amount to
produce an extinction
coefficient of 0.23 per
kilometer due to particles
when the relative humidity is
less than 70%.
— —
SOURCE: CARB 2008
a. California standards for O3, CO, SO2 (1 hour), NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for SO2 (24-hour), sulfates, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride standards are not to be equaled or exceeded. b. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 ȝg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98% of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard.
c. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parenthesis are based on a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury (1,013.2 millibars). All measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. d. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. e. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. f This standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10-mile nominal visual range when relative humidity is less than 70%.
* Measured as an arithmetic mean. New standard promulgated by the ARB on June 20, 2002 ** New standard promulgated by the ARB on June 20, 2002 Local
While CARB is responsible for the regulation of mobile emission sources within the state, local AQMDs and air pollution control districts are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. The SCAQMD is the regional agency responsible for the regulation and enforcement of federal, state, and local air pollution control regulations in the SCAB, where the proposed project is located. The SCAQMD operates monitoring stations in the SCAB, develops rules and regulations for stationary sources and equipment, prepares emissions inventory and air quality management planning documents, and conducts source testing and inspections. The SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP) include control measures and strategies to be implemented to attain state and federal ambient air quality standards in the SCAB. The SCAQMD then implements these control measures as regulations to control or reduce criteria pollutant emissions from stationary sources or equipment.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board adopted the 2003 AQMP on August 1, 2003. The 2003 AQMP updates the attainment demonstration for the federal standards for O3 and PM10; replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal CO standard,
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-13
provides a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future; and updates the maintenance plan for the federal NO2 standard that the SCAB has met since 1992. The South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board adopted the 2007 AQMP on June 1, 2007. The 2007 AQMP includes the same updates as the 2003 AQMP and also incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes and new air quality modeling tools. As part of the 2007 AQMP, the SCAQMD request that EPA "bump up" the O3 nonattainment status from severe to extreme to allow additional time for the SCAB to achieve attainment with the federal standard. The additional time would provide for implementation of state and federal measures that apply to sources over which the SCAQMD does not have control. The 2007 AQMP has been approved by CARB but is undergoing review by EPA.
Emissions that would result from mobile, stationary, and areas sources during construction and operation of the proposed project are subject to the rules and regulations of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD rules applicable to the proposed project may include the following.
Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust)
This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement Best Available Control Measures for all sources and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line.
SCAQMD Rule 403 is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust (see also Rule 1186).
Rule 431.2 (Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels)
The purpose of this rule is to limit the sulfur content in diesel and other liquid fuels for the purpose of both reducing the formation of SOx and particulates during combustion and to enable the use of add-on control devices for diesel fueled internal combustion engines. The rule applies to all refiners, importers, and other fuel suppliers such as distributors, marketers and retailers, as well as to users of diesel, low-sulfur diesel, and other liquid fuels for stationary source applications in the District. The rule also affects diesel fuel supplied for mobile source applications.
Rule 445 (Wood Burning Devices)
This rule prohibits the installation of permanently installed wood-burning devices into any new development and restricts the installation of wood-burning devices into existing development to specific devices, primarily those certified by EPA.
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-14
Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings)
This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end-users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce VOC emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the VOC content of various coating categories.
Rule 1121 (Control of Nitrogen Oxides from Residential Type, Natural Gas-Fired Water Heaters)
This rule prescribes NOx emission limits for natural gas-fired water heaters with heat input rates less than 75,000 BTU per hour. It applies to manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and installers of natural gas-fired water heaters.
Rule 1146.2 (Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers and Process Heaters)
This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, retailers, refurbishers, installers and operators of new and existing units to reduce NOx emissions from natural gas-fired water heaters, boilers, and process heaters as defined in this rule.
Rule 1186 (PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations) This rule applies to owners and operators of paved and unpaved roads and livestock operations.
The rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions by requiring the clean-up of material deposited onto paved roads, use of certified street sweeping equipment, and treatment of high-use unpaved roads (see also Rule 403).
Greenhouse Gas Regulatory Programs
International Activities
Kyoto Protocol
The United States is, and has been, a participant in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since it was signed on March 21, 1994. The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty made under the UNFCCC and was the first international agreement to regulate GHG emissions. The original Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in December 1997 and came into force on February 16, 2005. As of January 2009, 183 countries and the European Economic Community (EEC) have ratified the agreement (UNFCCC 2009). The goal of the protocol is to achieve overall emissions reduction targets for six GHGs by the period 2008 to 2012.
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-15
Federal Activities
Massachusetts vs. EPA
To date, the EPA has not regulated GHGs under the Clean Air Act based on the assertion that "(1) the Act does not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change, and (2) even if it had the authority to set GHG emission standards, it would have been unwise to do so at that time because a causal link between GHGs and the increase in global surface air temperatures was not unequivocally established."3 In Massachusetts v. EPA, however,
the Supreme Court held that EPA has the statutory authority under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act to regulate GHGs from new motor vehicles because GHGs meet the Clean Air Act definition of an air pollutant.4
The court did not hold that the EPA was required to regulate GHG emissions; however, it indicated that the agency must decide whether GHGs from motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Upon the final decision, President Bush signed Executive Order 13432 on May 14, 2007, directing the EPA, along with the Departments of Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture, to initiate a regulatory process that responds to the Supreme Court's decision.
In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court directed the Administrator to determine whether GHG emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In making these decisions, the Administrator is required to follow the language of Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. On April 17, 2009, the Administrator signed a proposal with two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
• The Administrator is proposing to find that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of 6 key greenhouse gases—CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is referred to as the endangerment finding.
• The Administrator is further proposing to find that the combined emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. This is referred to as the cause or contribute finding.
3 Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., 549 U.S. 497 (2007). 4 Ibid.
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-16
Energy Independence and Security Act
On December 19, 2007, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Among other key measures, the Act would do the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:
1. Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022
2. Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by Model Year 2020, directs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks
3. Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products, procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.
State of California
AB 1493
In a response to the transportation sector accounting for more than half of California's CO2 emissions, Assembly Bill 1493 (AB 1493, Pavley) was enacted on July 22, 2002. AB 1493 required CARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles determined by the state board to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the state. The bill required that CARB set the GHG emission standards for motor vehicles manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. CARB adopted the standards in September 2004. When fully phased in, the near-term (2009–2012) standards will result in a reduction of about 22% in GHG emissions compared to the emissions from the 2002 fleet, while the mid-term (2013–2016) standards will result in a reduction of about 30%.
In December 2004, these regulations were challenged in federal court by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which claimed that the law regulated vehicle fuel economy, a duty assigned to the federal government. Upon the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v.
EPA, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District dismissed the case by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in December 2007. However, before these regulations may go into effect, the EPA must grant California a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act, which ordinarily preempts state regulation of motor vehicle emission standards. On December 19, 2007, Stephen Johnson, the EPA Administrator, denied the waiver citing the need for a national approach to
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-17
reducing GHG emissions, the lack of a "need to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions," and the benefits to be achieved through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Johnson 2007). The California Attorney General subsequently filed suit in January 2008 to overturn the administrator's decision. The Obama Administration has reevaluated the waiver, and the waiver was granted by Lisa Jackson, the EPA Administrator, on June 30, 2009.
SB 1078
Approved by Governor Davis in September 2002, Senate Bill 1078 (SB 1078, Sher) established the Renewal Portfolio Standard program, which requires an annual increase in renewable generation by the utilities equivalent to at least 1% of sales, with an aggregate goal of 20% by 2017. This goal was subsequently accelerated, requiring utilities to obtain 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2010 (see SB 107). (See also Executive Order S-14-08.) Executive Order S-3-05
In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California's GHG emissions reduction targets in Executive Order S-3-05. The Executive Order established the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions should be reduced to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The Secretary of CalEPA is required to coordinate efforts of various agencies in order to collectively and efficiently reduce GHGs. Representatives from several state agencies comprise the Climate Action Team. The Climate Action Team is responsible for implementing global warming emissions reduction programs. The Climate Action Team fulfilled its report requirements through the March 2006 Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislature (CAT 2006). A second biennial report was released in April 2009.
The 2009 Draft Climate Action Team Report expands on the policy oriented in the 2006 assessment. The 2009 report provides new information and scientific findings regarding the development of new climate and sea-level projections using new information and tools that have recently become available and evaluates climate change within the context of broader soil changes, such as land use changes and demographics. The 2009 report also identifies the need for additional research in several different aspects that affect climate change in order to support effective climate change strategies. The aspects of climate change that were discussed that need future research include vehicle and fuel technologies, land use and smart growth, electricity and natural gas, energy efficiency, renewable energy and reduced carbon energy sources, low GHG technologies for other sectors, carbon sequestration, terrestrial sequestration, geologic sequestration, economic impacts and considerations, social science, and environmental justice.
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-18
SB 107
Approved by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 26, 2006, Senate Bill 107 (SB 107, Simitian) requires investor-owned utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric, to generate 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010. Previously, state law required that this target be achieved by 2017 (see SB 1078).
AB 32
In furtherance of the goals established in Executive Order S-3-05, the legislature enacted Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32, Nuñez and Pavley), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which Governor Schwarzenegger signed on September 27, 2006. The GHG emissions limit is equivalent to the 1990 levels, which are to be achieved by 2020.
CARB was been assigned to carry out and develop the programs and requirements necessary to achieve the goals of AB 32. Under AB 32, CARB must adopt regulations requiring the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. This program will be used to monitor and enforce compliance with the established standards. CARB is also required to adopt rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions.
AB 32 allows CARB to adopt market-based compliance mechanisms to meet the specified requirements. Finally, CARB is ultimately responsible for monitoring compliance and enforcing any rule, regulation, order, emission limitation, emission reduction measure, or market-based compliance mechanism adopted.
The first action under AB 32 resulted in the adoption of a report listing early action GHG emission reduction measures on June 21, 2007. The early actions include three specific GHG control rules. On October 25, 2007, CARB approved an additional six early action GHG reduction measures under AB 32. The original three adopted early action regulations meeting the narrow legal definition of "discrete early action GHG reduction measures" include:
• A low-carbon fuel standard to reduce the "carbon intensity" of California fuels • Reduction of refrigerant losses from motor vehicle air conditioning system maintenance to restrict the sale of "do-it-yourself" automotive refrigerants • Increased methane capture from landfills to require broader use of state-of-the-art methane capture technologies.
The additional six early action regulations, which were also considered "discrete early action GHG reduction measures," include:
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-19
1. Reduction of aerodynamic drag, and thereby fuel consumption, from existing trucks and trailers through retrofit technology
2. Reduction of auxiliary engine emissions of docked ships by requiring port electrification
3. Reduction of perfluorocarbons from the semiconductor industry
4. Reduction of propellants in consumer products (e.g., aerosols, tire inflators, and dust removal products)
5. Require that all tune-up, smog check and oil change mechanics ensure proper tire inflation as part of overall service in order to maintain fuel efficiency
6. Restriction on the use of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) from non-electricity sectors if viable alternatives are available.
As required under AB 32, on December 6, 2007, CARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions inventory, thereby establishing the emissions limit for 2020. The 2020 emissions limit was set at 427 MMT CO2E. In addition to the 1990 emissions inventory, CARB also adopted regulations requiring mandatory reporting of GHGs for large facilities that account for 94% of GHG emissions from industrial and commercial stationary sources in California. About 800 separate sources that fall under the new reporting rules and include electricity generating facilities, electricity retail providers and power marketers, oil refineries, hydrogen plants, cement plants, cogeneration facilities, and other industrial sources that emit carbon dioxide in excess of specified thresholds.
On December 11, 2008, CARB approved the Scoping Plan to achieve the goals of AB 32. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California's GHG emissions. The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sector-specific reductions, integrates all CARB and Climate Action Team early actions and additional GHG reduction measures by both entities, identifies additional measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlines the role of a cap-and-trade program. Additional development of these measures and adoption of the appropriate regulations will occur over the next 2 years, becoming effective by January 1, 2012. The key elements of the Scoping Plan include (CARB 2008):
• Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards;
• Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33%;
• Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85% of California's GHG emissions;
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-20
• Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; • Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies, including California's clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and
• Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State of California's long term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
SB 1368
In September 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 1368, which requires the CEC to develop and adopt regulations for GHG emissions performance standards for the long-term procurement of electricity by local publicly-owned utilities. These standards must be consistent with the standards adopted by the Public Utilities Commission. This effort will help to protect energy customers from financial risks associated with investments in carbon-intensive generation by allowing new capital investments in power plants whose GHG emissions are as low or lower than new combined-cycle natural gas plants, by requiring imported electricity to meet GHG performance standards in California and requiring that the standards be developed and adopted in a public process.
Executive Order S-1-07
Issued on January 18, 2007, Executive Order S-1-07 sets a declining Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for GHG emissions measured in CO2-equivalent gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The target of the LCFS is to reduce the carbon intensity of California passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10% by 2020. The carbon intensity measures the amount of GHG emissions in the lifecycle of a fuel, including extraction/feedstock production, processing, transportation, and final consumption, per unit of energy delivered. CARB adopted the implementing regulation in April 2009. The regulation is expected to increase the production of biofuels, including those from alternative sources such as algae, wood, and agricultural waste. In addition, the LCFS would drive the availability of plug-in hybrid, battery electric, and fuel-cell power motor vehicles. The LCFS is anticipated to replace 20% of the fuel used in motor vehicles with alternative fuels by 2020.
SB 97
In August 2007, the legislature enacted SB 97 (Dutton), which directs the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop guidelines under CEQA for the mitigation of GHG emissions. OPR is to develop proposed guidelines by July 1, 2009, and the Natural Resources
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-21
Agency is directed to adopt guidelines by January 1, 2010. On April 13, 2009, OPR submitted to the Secretary for Natural Resources its proposed amendments to the state CEQA Guidelines.
This bill also protects projects funded by the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, or the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2006 from claims of inadequate analysis of GHG as a legitimate cause of action. This latter provision will be repealed on January 1, 2010.
On June 19, 2008, OPR issued a technical advisory as interim guidance regarding the analysis of GHG emissions in CEQA documents (OPR 2008). The advisory indicated that a project's GHG emissions, including those associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage, and construction activities, should be identified and estimated. The advisory further recommended that the lead agency determine significance of the impacts and impose all mitigation measures that are necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a less-than-significant level.
On April 13, 2009, OPR submitted to the Natural Resources Agency its proposed amendments to the state CEQA Guidelines relating to greenhouse gas emissions. On July 3, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency commenced the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process for certifying and adopting the proposed amendments, starting the public comment period. The Natural Resources Agency is directed to adopt guidelines by January 1, 2010.
SB 375
In August 2008, the legislature passed and on September 30, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 375 (Steinberg), which addresses GHG emissions associated with the transportation section through regional transportation and sustainability plans. By September 30, 2010, CARB will assign regional GHG reduction targets for the automobile and light truck sector for 2020 and 2035. The targets are required to consider the emission reductions associated with vehicle emission standards (see SB 1493), the composition of fuels (see Executive Order S-1-07), and other CARB-approved measures to reduce GHG emissions. Regional metropolitan planning organizations will be responsible for preparing a Sustainable Communities Strategy within the Regional Transportation Plan. The goal of the Sustainable Communities Strategy is to establish a development plan for the region, which, after considering transportation measures and policies, will achieve, if feasible, the GHG reduction targets. If a Sustainable Communities Strategy is unable to achieve the GHG reduction target, a metropolitan planning organization must prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy demonstrating how the GHG reduction target would be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional transportation measures or policies. SB 375 provides incentives for streamlining CEQA requirements by substantially reducing the requirements for "transit priority projects," as specified in SB 375, and eliminating the analysis of the impacts of certain residential projects on global warming and the
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-22
growth-inducing impacts of those projects when the projects are consistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy or Alternative Planning Strategy.
Executive Order S-13-08
Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-13-08 on November 14, 2008. The Executive Order is intended to hasten California's response to the impacts of global climate change, particularly sea level rise. It directs state agencies to take specified actions to assess and plan for such impacts. It directs the Resource Agency, in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources, CEC, California's coastal management agencies, and the Ocean Protection Council to request the National Academy of Sciences to prepare a Sea Level Rise Assessment Report by December 1, 2010. The Ocean Protection Council, California Department of Water Resources, and CEC, in cooperation with other state agencies are required to conduct a public workshop to gather information relevant to the Sea Level Rise Assessment Report. The Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency was ordered to assess the vulnerability of the state's transportation systems to sea level rise within 90 days of the order. The Office of Planning and Research and the Resources Agency are required to provide land use planning guidance related to sea level rise and other climate change impacts. The order also requires the other state agencies to develop adaptation strategies by June 9, 2009, to respond to the impacts of global climate change that are predicted to occur over the next 50 to 100 years.
Executive Order S-14-08
On November 17, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-14-08. This Executive Order focuses on the contribution of renewable energy sources to meet the electrical needs of California while reducing the GHG emissions from the electrical sector. The governor's order requires that all retail suppliers of electricity in California serve 33% of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Furthermore, the order directs state agencies to take appropriate actions to facilitate reaching this target. The Resources Agency, through collaboration with the CEC and Department of Fish and Game, is directed to lead this effort. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the CEC and Department of Fish and Game creating the Renewable Energy Action Team, these agencies will create a "one-stop" process for permitting renewable energy power plants.
Pollution Constituents and Attainment Status
The significance of a pollutant concentration is determined by comparing it to state and/or federal ambient air quality standards, which represent the maximum allowable atmospheric concentrations of various pollutants which may occur and still protect public health and welfare, with a reasonable margin of safety. The EPA and CARB designate areas of California as having air quality better than (attainment) or worse than (nonattainment) the NAAQS/CAAQS.
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-23
The criteria pollutants of primary concern that are considered in this air quality assessment include O3, CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Although there are no ambient standards for VOCs or NOx, they are important as precursors to O3.
The criteria for nonattainment designation varies by pollutant. A system of monitoring stations which measure ambient air quality has been established to assist in the enforcement of the abovereferenced standards. The following section describes the six criteria air pollutants and their attainment status according to both state and federal standards. Table 5.10-3, South Coast Air Basin Attainment Classification, shows the SCAB attainment designation/classification under the NAAQS and CAAQS.
Ozone
Ozone (O3) is a secondary pollutant formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions of previously emitted pollutants, or precursors. These precursors are mainly NOx and VOCs (also referred to as reactive organic compounds or gases [ROC or ROG]). The maximum effects of precursor emissions on O3 concentrations usually occur several hours after they are emitted and many miles from the source. Ozone concentrations are highest during the warmer months and coincide with the seasons of maximum solar radiation. Ozone is a pungent, colorless gas typical of Southern California smog. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, the elderly, and young children. Ozone levels peak during summer and early fall.
The entire SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for both federal and state ozone standards. The EPA has classified the SCAB as a "severe" nonattainment area and has mandated that the SCAB achieve attainment by no later than 2021
Table 5.10-3
South Coast Air Basin Attainment Classification
Pollutant Averaging Time Designation/Classification
National
Ozone (O3) 8 hour Nonattainment/severe
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual arithmetic mean Attainment Carbon monoxide (CO) 1 hour, 8 hour Attainment
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 24 hour, annual arithmetic mean Unclassifiable Respirable particulate matter (PM10) 24 hour Nonattainment/serious Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 24 hour, annual arithmetic mean Nonattainment Lead (Pb) Calendar quarter Attainment
State b
Ozone (O3) 1 hour, 8 hour Nonattainment1
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 1 hour, Annual Attainment2
Carbon monoxide (CO) 1 hour, 8 hour Attainment
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Table 5.10-3 (Continued)
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-24
Pollutant Averaging Time Designation/Classification
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 1 hour, 24 hour Attainment
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) 24 hour, annual arithmetic mean Nonattainment Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Annual arithmetic mean Nonattainment Lead (Pb)3 30 day average Attainment
Sulfates (SO4) 24 hour Attainment
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 1 hour Unclassified
Vinyl chloride3 24 hour Unclassified
Visibility-reducing particles 8 hour (10:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m.) Unclassified SOURCES: a EPA 2008, b CARB 2009.
1 CARB has not issued area classification based on the new state 8-hour standard. The previous classification for the 1-hour O3 standard was Extreme.
2 CARB has not issued area classification based on the new state 1-hour and annual standards. 3 CARB has identified Pb, vinyl chloride, and Toxic Air Contaminants with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, almost entirely from automobiles. It is a colorless, odorless gas that can cause dizziness, fatigue, and impairments to central nervous system functions.
The SCAB is designated as an attainment area for federal CO standards. Although western portions of the SCAB are considered "unclassifiable" under state CO standards, Riverside County has been designated by CARB to be an attainment area.
Nitrogen Oxides
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a reddish brown gas, and nitric oxide (NO), a colorless, odorless gas, are formed from fuel combustion under high temperature or pressure. These compounds are referred to as oxides of nitrogen, or NOx. NOx is a primary component of the photochemical smog reaction. It also contributes to other pollution problems, including a high concentration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition. NO2 decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection.
The entire SCAB has not exceeded either federal or state standards for nitrogen dioxide in the past 5 years based published monitoring data. It is designated as an attainment area under the federal and state standards. The state NO2 standard was revised in 2008, but new designations have not been adopted.
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-25
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless irritating gas formed primarily from incomplete combustion of fuels containing sulfur. Industrial facilities also contribute to gaseous SO2 levels. SO2 irritates the respiratory tract, can injure lung tissue when combined with fine particulate matter, and reduces visibility and the level of sunlight.
The entire SCAB is in attainment with both federal and state sulfur dioxide standards.
Lead
Lead (Pb) is found in old paints and coatings, plumbing and a variety of other materials. Once in the blood stream, lead can cause damage to the brain, nervous system, and other body systems.
Children are highly susceptible to the effects of lead.
The entire SCAB is in attainment for the federal and state standards for lead.
Particulate Matter
Particulate matter is the term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Coarse or respirable particles (all particles less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter, or PM10) come from a variety of sources, including windblown dust and grinding operations.
Fine particles (less than 2.5 micrometers, or PM2.5) often come from fuel combustion, power plants, and diesel buses and trucks. Fine particles can also be formed in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. PM10 can accumulate in the respiratory system and aggravate health problems such as asthma. EPA's scientific review concluded that fine particles (PM2.5), which penetrate deeply into the lungs, are more likely than coarse particles to contribute to adverse health effects.
The SCAB is designated as a "serious" nonattainment area for federal PM10 standards and as a nonattainment area for state PM10 standards. In regards to PM2.5 attainment status, the SCAB is designated as a nonattainment area by CARB and by the EPA.
Existing Local Air Quality
The SCAQMD maintains ambient air quality monitoring stations throughout the SCAB. The closest ambient air quality monitoring station to the project site is the Perris Valley monitoring station, which measures O3 and PM10. For CO, NO2, PM2.5, and SO2, values from the monitoring station closest to the project site that measures that specific pollutant were used in this analysis, as presented in Table 5.10-4, Ambient Air Quality Data. The most recent background ambient air quality data from 2006 through 2008 are presented in Table 5.10-4 below.
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-26
Table 5.10-4
Ambient Air Quality Data
Pollutant Monitoring Station 2006 2007 2008*
O3
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) Perris Valley 0.17 0.139 0.142 # of days of state exceedances (>0.08 ppm) Perris Valley 76 66 65 Maximum 8-hour average concentration (ppm) Perris Valley 0.122 0.116 0.115 # of days of state exceedances (>0.070 ppm) Perris Valley 54 88 94 # of days of fed. exceedances (>0.08 ppm for
2006–07, >0.075 ppm for 2008) Perris Valley 53 37 77
CO
Max. Concentration 1 hour (ppm) Lake Elsinore 1 2 1.1** # of days of state exceedances (>20 ppm) Lake Elsinore 0 0 0** Max. Concentration 8 hours (ppm) Lake Elsinore 1.01 1.40 0.84 # of days of state exceedances (>9.0 ppm) Lake Elsinore 0 0 0 NO2
Max. Concentration 1-hour (ppm) Lake Elsinore 0.07 0.06 0.055 # of days of state exceedances (>0.25 ppm for
2006-07, >0.18 ppm for 2008)
Lake Elsinore 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic mean Lake Elsinore 0.015 0.017 0.013
PM10
Max. concentration 24-hour (ȝg/m3) Perris Valley 125 120 87 # of state exceedances (>50 ȝg/m3) Perris Valley 19 32 8 # of fed. exceedances (>150 ȝg/m3) Perris Valley 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic mean (state standard = 20 ȝg/m3) Perris Valley 45.0 54.8 29.6 PM2.5
Max. concentration (ȝg/m3) Metro RC2 55.3 68.6 47.9
# of fed. exceedances (>35 ȝg/m3) Metro RC2 9 8 5
Annual arithmetic mean (15.0 μg/m3) Metro RC2 17.0 18.1 14.25 SO2
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) Metro RC1 0.01 0.02 0.011 # of days of state exceedances (>0.25 ppm) Metro RC1 -- -- -- Maximum 24-hour average concentration (ppm) Metro RC1 0.004 0.002 0.003 # of days of state exceedances (>0.04 ppm) Metro RC1 -- -- -- # of days of fed. exceedances (>0.14 ppm) Metro RC1 -- -- -- Annual arithmetic mean (0.30 ppm) Metro RC1 0.0013 0.0017 0.001 SOURCE: South Coast Air Quality Management District (2009) Metro RC1 = Metropolitan Riverside County 1 (5888 Mission Blvd., Rubidoux) Metro RC2 = Metropolitan Riverside County 2 (7002 Magnolia Ave., Riverside) * 2008 data were taken from CARB Air Quality Data Statistics (2009) http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html, ** Data were taken from EPA AirData (2009) http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-27
As the table above demonstrates, air quality within the project region is in compliance with both CAAQS and NAAQS for CO, NO2, and SO2. Federal and state 1-hour and 8-hour O3 standards were, however, exceeded during each of the last 3 years. The PM10 level monitored at the air monitoring stations exceeded the state standard every year of the past 3 years; the federal standard was not exceeded once during this period. The federal standard, however, for PM2.5 was exceeded several times during each of the past 3 years.
5.10.3 Significance Criteria
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant impact to air quality if it:
• Conflicts with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Violates any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
• Results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
• Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
In addition, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or pollution control district may be relied upon to determine if the proposed project would have a significant impact on air quality.
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) sets forth quantitative emission significance thresholds below which a project would not have a significant impact on ambient air quality. Project-related air quality impacts estimated in this environmental analysis would be considered significant if any of the applicable significance thresholds presented in Table 5.10-5, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, are exceeded. To evaluate whether a project would result in a substantial contribution to an existing air quality violation of the NAAQS or CAAQS for ozone (see Table 5.10-2), which is a nonattainment pollutant, the SCAQMD considers a project to have a significant impact if the project's construction or operational emissions would exceed the VOC or NOx thresholds shown in Table 5.10-5. These emissionbased thresholds for ozone precursors are intended to serve as a surrogate for an "ozone significance threshold" (i.e., the potential for adverse ozone impacts to occur) because ozone itself is not emitted directly (see discussion of ozone and its sources above) and the effects of an individual project's emissions of ozone precursors (VOC and NOx) on ozone levels in ambient air cannot be determined through air quality models or other quantitative methods.
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-28
Table 5.10-5
SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Pollutant Construction Operation
Criteria Pollutants Mass Daily Thresholds
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
NOx 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
SOx 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
Lead a 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day
Toxic Air Contaminants and Odor Thresholds
(including carcinogens and noncarcinogens)
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment)
Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 Ambient Air Quality for Criteria Pollutants b
SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:
NO2 1-hour average 0.18 ppm (state)
NO2 annual average 0.030 ppm (state)
SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:
CO 1-hour average 20 ppm (state)
CO 8-hour average 9.0 ppm (state/federal)
PM10 24-hour average 10.4 μg/m3 (construction)c
2.5 μg/m3 (operation)
PM10 annual arithmetic mean 20.0 μg/m3
PM2.5 24-hour average 10.4 μg/m3 (construction)c
2.5 μg/m3 (operation)
SOURCE: SCAQMD, 1993
lbs/day = pounds per day
ppm = parts per million
μg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter
≥ = greater than or equal to
a The phasing-out of leaded gasoline started in 1976. As gasoline no longer contains lead, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in impacts related to lead; therefore, it is not discussed in this analysis. b Ambient air quality thresholds for criteria pollutants based on SCAQMD Rule 1303, Table A-2 unless otherwise stated. c Ambient air quality threshold based on SCAQMD Rule 403.
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook also sets forth additional indicators of potential air quality impacts which should be used as screening criteria indicating the need for further analysis. The additional indicators are as follows:
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-29
• Project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation.
• Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP and in other than planned locations for the project's build-out year.
• Project would have the potential to create or be subjected to an objectionable odor over 10 dilutions to thresholds (D/T) that could impact sensitive receptors. • Project would have hazardous materials on site and could result in an accidental release of air toxic emissions or acutely hazardous materials posing a threat to public health and safety.
• Project could emit an air toxic contaminant regulated by District rules or that is on a federal or state air toxic list.
• Project could involve burning of hazardous, medical, or municipal waste as waste-toenergy facility. • Project could be occupied by sensitive receptors within a quarter mile of an existing facility that emits air toxics identified in District Rule 1401 or near CO hot spots. • Project could emit carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants that individually or cumulatively exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in 1 million.
In addition to the above listed emission-based thresholds, the SCAQMD also recommends the evaluation of localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project as a result of construction activities. For project sites greater than 5 acres, potential impacts on local sensitive receptors are determined using an air quality dispersion model. Those impacts are then compared to the localized significance thresholds (LSTs). The LSTs for NO2 and CO represent the allowable increase in concentrations above background levels in the vicinity of a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the relevant ambient air quality standards. The threshold for PM10 represents compliance with Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). The significance threshold for PM2.5 is intended to ensure that construction emissions do not contribute substantially to existing exceedances of the PM2.5 ambient air quality standards.
The LSTs for NO2 and CO were derived from the ambient air quality data for the 3 previous years as shown in Table 5.10-3. For construction, the LSTs for PM10 and PM2.5 are both
10.4 ȝg/m3
(SCAQMD 2008). The LSTs applicable to construction of the proposed project, along with the relevant ambient air quality standards, are shown in Table 5.10-6, Localized Significance Thresholds.
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-30
Table 5.10-6
Localized Significance Thresholds
CAAQS/NAAQS
Pollutant
Averaging
Period μg/m3 ppm
Peak
Conc.
in ppm LST Criteria*
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 hour 339 0.18 0.07 207 0.11
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour 23,000 20 2 20,598 18
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 hours 10,000 9.0 1.4 8,697 7.6
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 hours 50 — NA 10.4 — Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)** 24 hours 35 — NA 10.4 — SOURCE: SCAQMD 2008.
* LST Criteria for NO2 and CO are the differences between CAAQS and the Peak Concentration. ** California has not adopted a 24-hour AAQS for PM2.5. The 24-hour PM2.5 AAQS shown is the national standard.
To date, no local or state air quality agency has adopted significance criteria for GHG emissions for residential and commercial projects. Nonetheless, this Draft EIR provides a discussion of the impacts of the project with respect to global climate change in the absence of an established significance threshold. To assess the impact of the proposed project with respect to global climate change, the potential contribution of the project to this cumulative impact is evaluated under the following criterion:
• The project could impede or conflict with the emissions reduction targets and strategies prescribed in or developed to implement AB 32.
This analysis conforms closely to the methodologies recommended in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CEQA and Climate Change discussion (CAPCOA 2008).
Calculations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide associated with the proposed project are provided for full disclosure of the magnitude of potential impacts. While a project may result in emission of GHGs, the significance of the impacts of a single project on the global climate cannot be quantified. The full disclosure of project GHG emissions is intended to provide information, which may be useful for regional agencies in the context of eventually developing regional or statewide emission projections.
5.10.4 Impacts
This section evaluates the air quality impacts associated with 1,016 single-family detached residential dwelling units, a high school with 2,000 students, 45.9 acres of park use, 281,570 square feet of general commercial/retail use, and 309,320 square feet of office type uses (general office and government complex such as a post office). If the 2,000-student high school site is not chosen by the School District, an additional 322 single-family detached residential dwelling units will be developed alternatively in Phase III. For purposes of air quality impact analysis, based on
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-31
the Institute of Transportation Engineers traffic rates (please refer to Traffic section), the development of the 2,000-student high school (as opposed to the alternative development of 322 residential units) would be the reasonable worst-case project, and is therefore, evaluated herein.
Would the project conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
While striving to achieve the NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5 through a variety of air quality control measures, the 2007 AQMP also accommodates planned growth in the SCAB. Projects are considered to be consistent with, and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of, the AQMP if the growth in socioeconomic factors (e.g., population, employment) are consistent with the underlying regional plans used to develop the AQMP. As indicated in Chapter 3 of the 2007 AQMP, demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories, developed by SCAG for their interim 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), were used in the modified 2004 RTP to estimate future emissions in the 2007 AQMP (SCAQMD 2007). Key growth forecasts for the City of San Jacinto from the modified 2004 RTP (SCAG 2004) include:
• Population: 31,256 (2010), 40,025 (2025), 42,738 (2030) • Employment: 8,587 (2010), 10,834 (2025), 11,620 (2030).
According to the California Department of Finance, the population of the City of San Jacinto as of January 1, 2009, was 36,477 (Department of Finance 2009). The estimated population of the proposed project, assuming that 322 single-family residences are built instead of the potential high school is 4,054, which would be achieved by 2023 according to the prescribed phasing of the project. When added to the current population, the total population (40,531) would exceed the forecasted population of the City of San Jacinto in 2025 but not 2030. However, the population growth projections for the neighboring City of Hemet are substantially higher than the current population. The SCAG RTP 2010 and 2025 population projections for the City of Hemet are 105,100 and 154,392, respectively, whereas the current Department of Finance 2009 population is 74,361 (Department of Finance 2009), more than 30,000 persons less than the 2010 projection. (This shift between the two cities is reflected in the population forecasts for the 2008 RTP, which shows higher growth for the City of San Jacinto and lower growth for the City of Hemet [SCAG 2008]). Accordingly, the proposed project would be accommodated in the subregional population forecasts used to prepare the 2007 AQMP.
The most recent employment estimate (May 2009) from the California Employment Development Department indicates 10,000 employees in the City of San Jacinto (California Employment Development Department 2009). The proposed project would create an estimated 675 jobs at full buildout in 2033. Thus, the total employment (10,675) would be within the
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-32
SCAG modified 2004 RTP forecast for 2030. Accordingly, the proposed project's employment would be accommodated in the forecasts used to prepare the 2007 AQMP.
As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, implementation of the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment. The current General Plan includes residential, open space, and commercial land use designations for the project site. Table 5.1-1, General Plan and Specific Plan Comparison, in Section 5.1 Land, Use, Planning, and Zoning, compares the General Plan and Specific Plan levels of development. As shown in this table, the Specific Plan would provide for up to 1,329 residential units (assuming the potential high school is not built) and 49 acres of commercial and mixed use development. These values are less than the 3,077 residential units and 54.4 acres of commercial development that would be allowed under the current General Plan land used designations for the site. As indicated in Section 5.1, the Specific Plan's potential inconsistency with the existing General Plan Land Use Map is considered less than significant from a Land Use Plan Map perspective. Section 5.1 also provides a detailed analysis of the Specific Plan's consistency with General Plan goals and policies.
Based on the preceding assessment, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP, and this impact would be less than significant.
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
Construction Activity Impacts
Construction activities, including soil disturbance dust emissions and combustion pollutants from on-site construction equipment and from off-site trucks hauling dirt, cement or building materials would create a temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed. These emissions are variable in time and space and differ considerably among various construction projects. Such emission levels can, therefore, only be approximately estimated with a corresponding uncertainty in precise ambient air quality impacts.
Emissions from the construction phase of the project were estimated through the use of emission factors from the URBEMIS 2007, Version 9.2.4, land use and air emissions model and the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993).
Construction phasing and other URBEMIS modeling assumptions are based on the project phasing in the project's Traffic Impact Study (refer to Section 5.9, Transportation, Circulation, and Access) and the project description provided in the Specific Plan. For purposes of this assessment, the following assumptions were made regarding the project phases and construction
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-33
subsphases. Mass grading for the entire site would start in December 2011 and would be completed 7 months after. The grading plans anticipate that cut and fill will be balanced; no export or import of soil is planned. Phase I would be completed in December 2015. Fine grading for Phase II would start immediately after the completion of Phase I in January 2016. Phase II would be completed in December 2017. Phase III would commence immediately after the completion of Phase II in December 2017. Phase III would include the construction of singlefamily residences and a high school. In July 2018, six months into the development phase, construction of the high school would start. Phase III, including the high school, would be completed in December 2023. Construction of the remaining nonresidential land uses in Phase IV would start in January 2024 and would be completed by December 2033.
Additional details of the construction schedule are included in Appendix I.
The project would involve multiple construction subphases: 1) mass grading, 2) fine site grading of individual phases, 3) utilities/infrastructure (trenching), 4) building construction, 5) paving, and 6) architectural coating. Phases I, II, III, and IV would involve separate construction subphases with the exception of mass grading, which will cover the entire project site and occur during Phase I only. The proposed project would commence in 2011 and would be completed by 2033, for a total construction duration of 22 years. Within the analysis, it was generally assumed that heavy construction equipment would be operating at the site for approximately 8 hours per day, six days per week (26 days a month), during project construction.
URBEMIS 2007 model defaults were utilized where detailed project data is unknown at this time (refer to Appendix I). For example, the specific construction equipment and specifications may change over time and cannot be identified with certainty during the planning phase. To account for dust control measures in the calculations, it was assumed that the active sites would be watered at least three times daily, resulting in a approximately 61% reduction, to comply with Rule 403. Table 5.10-7, Heavy Construction Equipment, presents the heavy construction equipment assumptions for each construction stage, as applied in the model. The assumptions identified above and the number of equipment units presented in the table below represent a reasonably conservative estimate of construction activity.
Table 5.10-7
Heavy Construction Equipment
Construction Phase Equipment Number
Grader 1
Rubber Tired Dozers 1
Tracker/Loader/Backhoe 1 Mass Grading
Water Trucks 1
Fine Grading Graders 1
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Table 5.10-7 (Continued)
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-34
Construction Phase Equipment Number
Rubber Tired Dozers 1
Tracker/Loader/Backhoe 1
Water Trucks 1
Excavators 2
Tracker/Loader/Backhoe 1
Other General Industrial Equipment 1 Trenching
Tractor/Loaders/Backhoe 1
Cranes 1
Generator Sets 1
Forklifts 3
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoe s 3
Building Construction (Residential)
Welders 1
Paver 1
Paving (Residential) Paving Equipment 2
Rollers 2
Cement and Mortar Mixers 4
Pavers 1
Paving Equipment 2
Rollers 1
Paving (Commercial/Mixed Use)
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1
Cranes 1
Generator Sets 1
Forklifts 3
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoe s 3
Building Construction
(Commercial/Mixed Use
Welders 1
SOURCE: URBEMIS 2007 V 9.2.4 Phase Assumptions (see Appendix I).
In addition to the heavy construction equipment identified above, construction material delivery truck and worker trips and architectural coatings were calculated for all relevant construction phases based on URBEMIS 2007 defaults. Table 5.10-8, Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, provides a summary of the emission estimates for the construction phase of the proposed project. Refer to Appendix I for detailed emission calculations.
Table 5.10-8
Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Year 2011
2011 Daily Maximum 2.86 23.49 12.93 0.00 36.58 8.48
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Table 5.10-8 (Continued)
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-35
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2012
2012 Daily Maximum 2.72 22.00 12.42 0.00 36.48 8.38
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2013
2013 Daily Maximum 12.54 29.79 72.64 0.10 2.23 1.79
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2014
2014 Daily Maximum 12.07 27.22 68.23 0.10 2.05 1.62
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2015
2015 Daily Maximum 11.65 24.66 64.10 0.10 1.93 1.51
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2016
2016 Daily Maximum 715.50 20.52 48.58 0.08 14.92 3.66
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2017
2017 Daily Maximum 15.17 18.74 45.98 0.08 1.42 1.10
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2018
2018 Daily Maximum 7.37 29.81 57.75 0.08 21.85 4.99
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2019
2019 Daily Maximum 79.98 27.26 55.73 0.08 1.80 1.35
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? YES No No No No No
Year 2020
2020 Daily Maximum 4.61 13.62 34.06 0.06 0.99 0.75
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2021
2021 Daily Maximum 4.38 12.67 28.00 0.06 0.97 0.73
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Table 5.10-8 (Continued)
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-36
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2022
2022 Daily Maximum 4.38 12.67 28.00 0.06 0.97 0.73
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2023
2023 Daily Maximum 4.38 12.67 28.00 0.06 0.97 0.73
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2024
2024 Daily Maximum 6.30 11.17 16.31 0.03 11.11 2.67
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2025
2025 Daily Maximum 6.30 9.36 16.31 0.03 0.62 0.49
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2026
2026 Daily Maximum 6.24 9.17 14.75 0.03 0.61 0.49
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2027
2027 Daily Maximum 6.24 9.17 14.75 0.03 0.61 0.49
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2028
2028 Daily Maximum 6.24 9.17 14.75 0.03 0.61 0.49
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2029
2029 Daily Maximum 5.91 9.26 15.42 0.03 0.64 0.50
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2030
2030 Daily Maximum 5.91 9.26 15.42 0.03 0.64 0.50
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2031
2031 Daily Maximum 5.88 9.16 14.38 0.03 0.63 0.50
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Table 5.10-8 (Continued)
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-37
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2032
2032 Daily Maximum 5.88 9.16 14.38 0.03 0.63 0.50
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
Year 2033
2033 Daily Maximum 5.88 9.16 14.38 0.03 0.63 0.50
Significance Criteria 75 100 550 150 150 55
Potentially Significant? No No No No No No
SOURCE: URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4 Appendix I for calculations.
NOTES: These estimates reflect control of fugitive dust required by Rule 403. Emissions in bold represent the maximum pollutant emissions that would occur over any day during the construction for the specific year and that would exceed the significance thresholds Ground disturbances and equipment operation during construction activities would produce potentially significant short-term PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Implementation of the proposed project would generate construction-related air pollutant emissions from two general activity categories, entrained dust and vehicle emissions. Entrained dust results from the exposure of earth surfaces to wind from the direct disturbance and movement of soil, resulting in PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Vehicle exhaust results from internal combustion engines used by construction equipment and vehicle which results in emissions of NOx, VOCs, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
As shown in the preceding table, maximum construction-generated PM10 emissions of 36.58 pounds per day would be below the SCAQMD's quantitative significance threshold of 150 pounds per day. PM2.5 maximum daily emissions of 8.48 lbs/day would also be below the established threshold of 55 pounds per day. Although such fugitive dust would be short term and would only last during the duration of grading activity, such PM10 and PM2.5 emissions could be considered problematic since they could cause a public nuisance or further exacerbate the existing PM10 nonattainment situation in the SCAB. During construction, the project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which sets forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites (as well as other fugitive dust sources) in the SCAQMD, but does not require a permit for construction activities. The general requirement prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust from construction (or other fugitive dust source) such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source. SCAQMD Rule 403 also prohibits a construction site from causing an incremental PM10 concentration impact at the property line of more than 50 micrograms per cubic meter as determined through PM10 high-volume sampling, but the concentration standard and associated PM10 sampling do not apply if specific measures identified in the rule are implemented and appropriately documented. In order to reduce potential PM10 impacts and fugitive dust emissions, mitigation is recommended (see Section 5.10.5, Mitigation
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-38
Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.10-a). Without mitigation, however, air quality impacts related to anticipated PM10 emission levels during construction would be considered less than significant.
The application of architectural coatings (exterior/interior paint and other finishings) would produce VOC emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD's established quantitative significance threshold. As indicated above in Table 5.10-8, maximum construction-generated VOC emissions in 2019 would exceed the 75 lbs/day significance threshold. In order to reduce these potential impacts, mitigation is provided (see Section 5.10.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure
5.10-c). Although mitigation is provided, these impacts would not be reduced to a level below significance; therefore, the construction phase of the project would result in significant, unmitigable air quality impacts due to anticipated VOC emission levels.
Operational Impacts
Operations of the project would produce VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from all combined proposed residential and nonresidential project land uses, including vehicular traffic, space heating and cooling, water heating, and consumer products.
Specifically, the proposed project would impact air quality through the vehicular traffic generated by project residents, visitors, customers and employees. According to the project's traffic analysis (see Section 5.9, Transportation, Circulation, and Access), total project-generated daily traffic is estimated to be 27,166 trip-ends per day. The URBEMIS 2007 model was utilized to estimate daily emissions from proposed vehicular sources (refer to Appendix I, which includes the data and assumptions used to generate emissions information summarized within this section for both the summer and winter seasons). URBEMIS 2007 default data, including temperature, trip characteristics, variable start information, emission factors, and trip distances, were conservatively used for the model inputs. Project-related traffic (identified above) was assumed to be comprised of a mixture of vehicles in accordance with the model outputs for traffic. This assumption includes light-duty autos and light-duty trucks (i.e., small trucks, SUVs, and vans) as well as medium- and heavy-duty vehicles that may be traveling within the project area to make deliveries or as business customers with larger vehicles. Emission factors representing the vehicle mix and emissions for the year 2017 and 2020 were used to estimate emissions. The year 2017 would be an intermediate year of development, and 2020 was assumed to be the year of full occupancy/operation. It is expected that project emissions would decrease on an annual basis from 2020 onward due to phase-out of higher polluting vehicles and implementation of more stringent emission standards.
In addition to estimating mobile source emissions, the URBEMIS 2007 model was also used to estimate emissions from the project area sources, which include natural gas appliances, natural-
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-39
gas burning fireplaces, gas-powered landscape maintenance equipment, architectural coatings, and consumer products. It should be noted that as specific operational characteristics of the proposed business park and retail uses are presently unknown, associated process activity emissions for any specific uses cannot be estimated at this time. However, if these emissions were substantial, they may require further CEQA analysis and would fall under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD air permit process which would require the application of standard mitigation measures and permit conditions and/or emission offsets to ensure that any proposed stationary emissions remain less than significant. The present estimation of proposed operational emissions is based upon typical business park and commercial uses for this type of project, and the analysis is considered a reliable estimate of the project's likely emissions.
Table 5.10-9, Summary of Estimated Phase I + Phase II + Phase III Operational Air Pollutant Emissions, presents the maximum daily emissions associated with partial build-out of the proposed project during the year 2023. Details of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix I.
Table 5.10-9
Summary of Estimated Phase I + Phase II + Phase III Operational Air Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Summer 2023
Area Source Emissions 66.72 18.88 59.98 0.00 0.16 0.16
Vehicular Emissions 66.40 63.97 632.97 1.27 207.40 40.36 Total 133.12 82.85 689.95 1.27 204.56 40.52
Significance Criteria 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant? YES YES YES NO YES NO
Winter 2023
Area Source Emissions 58.70 25.49 11.59 0.05 0.61 0.60
Vehicular Emissions 66.22 75.82 599.76 1.06 207.40 40.36 Total 124.92 102.31 611.35 1.11 208.01 40.96
Significance Criteria 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant? YES YES YES NO YES NO
Source: URBEMIS 2007 V 9.2.4
The URBEMIS2007 year options for operational emissions modeling are in five-year increments, starting in 2020. As such, the year 2020 was utilized in the model to represent year 2023, which is a conservative approach.
As shown in Table 5.10-9, operation of Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III of the proposed project would exceed SCAQMD established thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, and PM10.
The peak daily emissions predicted for the both the summer and winter season in the project's full buildout of operation (2033) are summarized in Table 5.10-10, Summary of Estimated Full
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-40
Buildout Operational Air Pollutant Emissions, along with a comparison with the SCAQMD's significance criteria. Details of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix I.
Table 5.10-10
Summary of Estimated Full Buildout Operational Air Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Summer 2033
Area Source Emissions 71.01 23.75 67.19 0.00 0.19 0.19
Vehicular Emissions 81.80 66.55 739.26 2.20 355.79 69.09 Total 152.81 90.30 806.45 2.20 355.98 69.28
Significance Criteria 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant? YES YES YES NO YES YES
Winter 2033
Area Source Emissions 62.50 30.27 15.61 0.05 0.62 0.61
Vehicular Emissions 86.63 79.94 703.95 1.81 355.79 69.09 Total 149.13 110.21 719.56 1.86 356.41 69.70
Significance Criteria 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant? YES YES YES NO YES YES
SOURCE: URBEMIS 2007 V 9.2.4
The URBEMIS2007 year options for operational emissions modeling are in five-year increments, starting in 2020. As such, the year 2030 was utilized in the model to represent year 2033, which is a conservative approach.
As shown in the preceding table, the projected operational emissions from both area source and vehicular emissions are substantially above the SCAQMD significance criteria for all pollutants except SOx. This would represent a significant impact with regard to operation of the project, and therefore, mitigation would be required (see Section 5.10.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.10-d). Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.10-d, long-term operational air quality impacts would be considered significant and unmitigable.
Mobile source impacts occur basically on two scales of motion. Regionally, project-related travel will add to regional trip generation and increase the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the local airshed. Locally, project traffic will be added to the San Jacinto roadway system near the project area. If such traffic occurs during periods of poor atmospheric ventilation, is comprised of a large number of vehicles "cold-started" and operating at pollution-inefficient speeds, and is operating on roadways already crowded with non-project traffic, there is a potential for the formation of micro-scale air pollution CO "hot spots" in the area immediately around points of congested traffic. Because of continued improvement in vehicular emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, regional air pollution "hot spot" potential is steadily decreasing.
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-41
Projects involving adverse traffic impacts may result in the formation of CO hot spots. To verify that the project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the CO standard, a screening evaluation of the potential for CO hot spots was conducted. The project's Traffic Impact Study (refer to Section 5.9, Transportation, Circulation, and Access) evaluated whether or not there would be a decrease in the level of service at the intersections affected by the project. The potential for CO hot spots was evaluated based on the results of the traffic study. The Caltrans ITS Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (Caltrans 1998) was followed.
In accordance with the Protocol, CO hot spots are typically evaluated when: 1) the level of service (LOS) of an intersection or roadway decreases to a LOS E or worse; 2) signalization and/or channelization is added to an intersection; and 3) sensitive receptors such as residences, commercial developments, schools, and hospitals are located in the vicinity of the affected intersection or roadway segment.
The project traffic study evaluated 16 intersections in the project vicinity to evaluate project build-out/General Plan build-out LOS (2033). The traffic study assumed the implementation of a number of traffic improvements which reduce and/ or maintain traffic levels of services at 11 out of the 16 identified study intersections at LOS D or above under the General Plan build-out scenario (refer to Section 5.9, Transportation, Circulation, and Access for specific data).
Although the remaining 5 intersections would operate at unacceptable level of service under the project build-out/General Plan build-out condition, the County of Riverside and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) have yet to define the future design configurations for these regional intersections under General Plan Buildout conditions. Although it may be reasonable to assume that RCTC will complete the design and implementation of these regional interchange improvements prior to project/General Plan build-out, which the applicant will fund in part through payment of appropriate mitigation fees [Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) and City of San Jacinto Traffic Fees], and that these regional improvements would operate at an LOS D or above; until such time as these improvements are planned and funded, CO hotspot impacts must be assumed to occur at these intersections. This would represent a significant impact with regard to cumulative operation of the project and therefore, mitigation would be required (see Section 5.10.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.10-e). Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.10-e, long-term operational air quality impacts would be considered significant and unmitigable.
Health Impacts of Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions
The construction of the proposed project would result in VOC emissions that exceed the SCAQMD mass-emission thresholds; all other criteria pollutants were found to be less than significant. Specific VOCs may be toxic air contaminants; however, the specific VOCs
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-42
associated with project construction are unknown. Some VOC would be associated with motor vehicles and construction equipment, while others are associated with architectural coatings, the emissions of which would result in the exceedances of the SCAQMD threshold as shown in Table 5.10-8. Generally, the VOCs in architectural coatings are of relatively low toxicity. In addition, VOCs are a precursor to ozone, for which the SCAB is designated as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS. Thus, existing ozone levels in the SCAB are at unhealthy levels during certain periods. The health effects associated with ozone, as discussed in Section 5.10.2, are generally associated with reduced lung function. The contribution of VOCs to regional ambient ozone concentrations is the result of complex photochemistry. The increase in ozone concentrations in the SCAB due to ozone precursor emissions tend to be found downwind from the source location to allow time for the photochemical reactions to occur. However, the potential for exacerbating excessive ozone concentrations also would depend on the time of year that the VOC emissions would occur because exceedances of the ozone AAQS tend to occur between April and October when solar radiation is highest. The effect of a single project's emissions of ozone precursor is speculative due to the lack of quantitative methods to assess this impact. Nonetheless, the VOC emissions associated with project construction could contribute to regional ozone concentrations and the associated health impacts.
According to the LST analysis, the construction of the proposed project could contribute substantially to exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for PM10 and PM2.5. As described in Section 5.10.2, PM10 and PM2.5 can accumulate in the respiratory system and aggravate health problems such as asthma. For the proposed project, the possibility of impacting nearby receptors depends on the presence of receptors at neighboring parcels and their proximity to active construction areas. Currently, the project site is surrounded by agricultural uses rather than existing neighborhoods. An existing residence is located approximately 500 feet southeast of the southeast corner of the project site. Furthermore, the primary source of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would be mass grading of the project site, followed by fine grading of the residential and commercial/mixed-use phases. These operations are relatively short-term and would be well controlled to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 (e.g., no visible dust may leave the construction site). Accordingly, it is expect that any potential increases in health impacts associated with PM10 and PM2.5 would be minor and temporary.
During operation of the proposed project, the emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 would exceed the SCAQMD mass-emission thresholds. The VOC and NOx emissions, as described above, would contribute to regional ozone concentrations and the associated health effects. In addition to ozone, NOx contributes to potential exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for NO2. As shown in Table 5.10-4, the existing NO2 concentrations are well below the NAAQS and CAAQS. Thus, it is not expected the project's NOx emissions would result in exceedances of the NO2 standards or contribute to the associated health effects. CO tends to be a localized impact associated with congested intersections. The associated CO "hot spots" were
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-43
discussed previously as a significant and unavoidable impact after mitigation. Thus, the project's CO emissions may contribute to the health effects associated with this pollutant, which include impairments to central nervous system functions. The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions during operation would result primarily from fugitive road dust and, to a lesser extent, motor vehicle exhaust. Thus, the emissions would be dispersed throughout the project area and not confined to specific locations that would result in localized impacts to receptors. The PM10 and PM2.5 would contribute to the regional exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS and the associated health effects for these pollutants.
Would the project violate any air quality standard or contributes substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
As indicated in the discussion of the thresholds of significance, the SCAQMD also recommends the evaluation of localized NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 impacts as a result of construction activities to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The impacts were analysis using methods consistent with those in the SCAQMD's Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2008). The Industrial Source Complex – Short Term, Version 3 (ISCST3) air quality dispersion model was used for the analysis. ISCST3 is approved for use by the SCAQMD for the purposes of performing an LST analysis. Details of the LST analysis are described in Appendix I.
Table 5.10-11, LST Modeling Results, shows the maximum NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 concentrations associated with the proposed project at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. The values shown in these tables are the maximum results associated with the construction phase and activity producing the highest impacts.
Table 5.10-11
LST Modeling Results
Modeling Results LST Criteria
Pollutant
Averaging
Period μg/m3 ppm μg/m3 ppm
Exceeds
Threshold?
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 hour 12.2 0.01 244 0.13 NO
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 hour 115 0.10 17,165 15 NO
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 hours 48 0.04 6,065 5.3 NO
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 hours 70.4 NA 10.4 NA YES Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24 hours 15.7 NA 10.4 NA YES As shown in Table 5.10-11, the project impacts on NO2 and CO concentrations would not cause or contribute to exceedances of the CAAQS. The maximum 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are anticipated to exceed the LST at the maximally impacted sensitive receptor in
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-44
the vicinity of the project site. Thus, construction of the proposed project would result in significant air quality impacts during the construction phase.
Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Odors are a form of air pollution that is most obvious to the general public. Odors can present significant problems for both the source and surrounding community. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be annoying and cause concern. During the construction period, the potential odors associated with the proposed project would result from the application of asphalt, from diesel and gas fumes, and from the application of paint. Due to the temporary nature of construction and the relatively sparse population surrounding the project site (i.e., mostly agricultural fields), temporary odors associated with project construction would be considered less than significant.
During the operational phase of the proposed project, anticipated odors would be generated from cooking facilities and landscape/building maintenance. In general, these odors are not considered to create a significant nuisance and it is not likely that these odors would cause a significant impact to surrounding receptors. Nevertheless, if specific businesses within the proposed commercial component of the project are identified and specific permits are requested for uses that could cause a significant impact, the City of San Jacinto may further evaluate odor emissions from such uses to determine if additional environmental review is warranted at that time. In addition to these potential odor sources, the proposed project would incorporate a detention basin that will collect the runoff that emanates from offsite and onsite areas and will serve as a regional water quality facility for the project. Proper maintenance of the detention basin including periodic cleaning and maintaining aerobic conditions should alleviate the potential for the collected water to generate objectionable odors. At this time, however, long-term operational impacts associated with project-generated odors would be considered less than significant.
The project site is bordered by undeveloped agricultural land to the north (and future westward extension of Ramona Boulevard), Sanderson Avenue to the east, Odell Avenue to the west, and undeveloped agricultural land and a municipal wastewater treatment plant to the south (see Figure 3.3, Project Location Map). Land uses in the project area consist of agricultural operations including sod farms, dry farming, animal grazing pastures and dairies. Although several parcels within the project vicinity are in the process of being developed with residential subdivisions and/or commercial centers, project residents, employees, and/or customers may be subjected to noticeable odors associated with standard agricultural operations (fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) and/or odors associated with the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) operations to the south. The odors associated with agriculture are often characterized as having a heavy, pungent nitrogen smell, while the odors associated with the WWTP can at times (particularly in hotter conditions) smell rotten and sulfuric in character. Odors would likely be most pronounced
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-45
on days when hot temperatures are experienced and/or gusts of winds occur. Given the proximity of the project to off-site odor sources, the project could result in odor nuisance complaints. As a part of the proposed project specific plan, the applicant has agreed to incorporate setbacks, fencing, and vegetative screening to protect and/or screen sensitive project receptors. Potential off-site odor impacts would, therefore, be considered less than significant.
Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are defined as substances that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Although not anticipated at this time, if a business/commercial use is subsequently proposed that would involve potential TACs that require air permits, such permits would be subject to SCAQMD health risk assessment and public notification requirements. The SCAQMD permit requires the application of appropriate safeguards to ensure the public safety. If specific permits are requested for uses that could create TACs, the City of San Jacinto may further evaluate the project to determine if additional environmental review is warranted at that time. At this time, however, long-term operational impacts associated with toxic air contaminants are considered less than significant.
CARB has published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB 2005), which identifies certain types of facilities or sources that may emit substantial quantities of TACs and therefore could conflict with sensitive land uses, such as "schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities." The Air Quality and Land Use Handbook is a guide for siting of new sensitive land uses, but it does not mandate specific separation distances to avoid potential health impacts.
The enumerated facilities or sources include:
• High traffic freeways and roads
• Distribution centers
• Rail yards
• Ports
• Refineries
• Chrome plating facilities
• Dry cleaners
• Large gas dispensing facilities
CARB recommends that sensitive receptors not be located downwind or in proximity to such sources to avoid potential health hazards.
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-46
With the possible exception of dry cleaners, the proposed project would not include these types of TAC sources on site. (New dry cleaners in the SCAQMD are prohibited from using perchloroethylene, a TAC; thus, siting of a dry cleaner within the proposed project would not result in TAC emissions). Moreover, the proposed project's residential uses, parks, or the potential high school would not be located in proximity to any of these listed sources off site.
Accordingly, the proposed project would not generate substantial TAC emissions that would conflict with surrounding sensitive receptors nor expose the project's inhabitants to TAC emissions from these sources.
Would the project could impede or conflict with the emissions reduction targets and strategies prescribed in or developed to implement AB 32?
Quantification of GHG Emissions
In January 2008, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) published CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. This white paper is "intended as a resource, not a guidance document. It is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to dictate the manner in which an air district or lead agency chooses to address greenhouse gas emissions in the context of its review of projects under CEQA" (CAPCOA 2008). This document describes analytical methodologies for estimating direct (mobile and area sources) and indirect (electrical and water/wastewater utilities) GHG emissions associated with a development project. For the most part, the calculation methods described below are consistent with this guidance as well as the OPR technical advisory (OPR 2008).
Construction GHG Emissions
Emissions from Construction Equipment and Vehicles
Construction of the proposed project would result in GHG emissions, which are primarily associated with use of off-road construction equipment and vehicles and on-road construction and worker vehicles. The URBEMIS 2007 model was used to calculate the annual CO2 emissions based on the construction scenario described in Section 5.10.4. The model results were adjusted to estimate methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions in addition to CO2. The CO2 emissions from off-road equipment and vehicles and delivery trucks, which are assumed by URBEMIS 2007 to be diesel fueled, were adjusted by a factor derived from the relative CO2, CH4, and N2O for diesel fuel as reported in the California Climate Action Registry's (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol (CCAR 2009) for transportation fuels and the GWP for each GHG.
The CO2 emissions associated with construction worker trips were multiplied by a factor based on the assumption that CO2 represents 95% of the CO2E emissions associated with passenger vehicles (EPA 2005). The results were then converted from annual tons per year to metric tons
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-47
per year. As shown in Table 5.10-12, Estimated Annual Construction Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, the maximum GHG emissions during construction would range from 29 metric tons of emissions per year (expressed as CO2 equivalent) to 1,771 metric tons per years, peaking in 2014 and 2015. Additional detail regarding these calculations is found in Appendix I.
Table 5.10-12
Estimated Annual Construction Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Construction Year Metric Tons CO2E/Year
2011 29
2012 335
2013 1,644
2014 1,771
2015 1,771
2016 859
2017 1,406
2018 953
2019 1,707
2020 1,208
2021 1,204
2022 1,204
2023 1,201
2024 483
2025 647
2026 647
2027 647
2028 647
2029 693
2030 693
2031 693
2032 695
2033 693
Emissions from Release of Methane from Disturbed Soil During Construction The project site included a former 20-acre cattle operation. If manure from this operation remained on the site and were buried where it could undergo anaerobic decomposition and generate methane (a GHG), methane could be released to the atmosphere during subsurface operations such as excavation. Surface or near surface deposits of manure would undergo aerobic decomposition, which does not generate methane. However, according to the Phase I environmental site assessment (Appendix L), the manure was removed from the site for use as fertilizer. Mitigation Measure 5.13-a in Section 5.13, Hazards, addresses the potential for
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-48
methane releases from the former cattle operation. Methane investigations would take place and in the event that methane is detected in this area, installation of mitigation mechanisms to collect methane would occur in accordance with the most recent Riverside County Department of Environmental Health's preliminary methane investigation protocols.
Operational GHG Emissions
Development of the proposed project would result in the generation of GHGs, primarily CO2.
The project includes features that would reduce the generation of GHG relative to a project developed without these features. The latter scenario is described as "business-as-usual" in the following discussion. The following sections discuss the calculations of GHG emissions resulting from the primary sources of GHGs associated with the operation of the proposed project at full buildout in 2033.
Emissions from Motor Vehicles
Annual CO2 emissions from motor vehicle trips for full project buildout in 2033 were quantified using the URBEMIS 2007 model. As described above for construction worker vehicles, CH4 and N2O emissions were accounted for by multiplying the URBEMIS 2007 CO2 emissions by a factor based on the assumption that CO2 represents 95% of the CO2E emissions associated with passenger vehicles (EPA 2005). The business-as-usual scenario assumes that the project would be developed with single-family residential only. The commercial and mixed-use development was assumed to be developed at a different, noncontiguous location. Accordingly, the adjustment of the trip generation for "internal capture" (also referred to as "double counting") would not occur. To generate the business-as-usual emissions associated with motor vehicles, the URBEMIS 2007 model was run without an adjustment for double counting. The estimated GHG emissions from motor vehicles under the business-as-usual scenario are shown in Table 5.10-13, Estimated Business-As-Usual Operational Emissions of Greenhouse Gases. The estimated GHG emissions from motor vehicles under the proposed project scenario are shown in Table 5.10-14, Estimated Proposed Project Operational Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Additional details regarding these calculations are found in Appendix I.
Emissions from Natural Gas Combustion and Landscape Maintenance Annual CO2 emissions from natural gas combustion for space and water heating and gas fireplaces (new wood-burning devices are prohibited in the SCAB) were estimated using URBEMIS 2007. The CO2 emissions were adjusted by a factor derived from the relative CO2, CH4, and N2O for natural gas as reported in the CCAR's General Reporting Protocol (CCAR 2009) for stationary combustion fuels and their GWPs. Implementation of the Specific Plan's Energy Efficiency Guidelines would likely result in a reduction in the GHG emissions from natural gas usage. However, those emission reductions cannot be quantified because the
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-49
Guidelines do not provide sufficient detail to compute the reduction in natural gas usage. The estimated GHG emissions from natural gas combustion are shown in Tables 5.10-13 and 5.10-14 under the business-as-usual and proposed project scenarios, respectively. Additional details regarding these calculations are found in Appendix I.
URBEMIS 2007 estimates the CO2 emissions associated with use of landscape maintenance equipment. The contribution from this source category is very small; thus, it was assumed that the CO2 emissions account for all of the GHG emissions.
Emissions from Electricity Use
Annual electricity use was based upon the SCAQMD's estimated generation rates for the land uses of the proposed project (SCAQMD 1993). Development of the proposed project at buildout would consume approximately 16,323,400 kilowatt-hours per year (see Appendix I for calculations). The generation of electricity through combustion of fossil fuels typically results in emissions of CO2 and to a smaller extent CH4 and N2O. Annual electricity emissions were estimated using the reported CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour for Southern California Edison, which would provide electricity for the project (CCAR 2009).5 The contributions of CH4 and N2O for powerplants in California were obtained from the CCAR's General Reporting Protocol, which were adjusted for their GWPs. Implementation of the Specific Plan's Energy Efficiency Guidelines would likely result in a reduction in the GHG emissions associated with electrical use and generation. However, those emission reductions cannot be quantified because the Guidelines do not provide sufficient detail to compute the reduction in electrical usage. Tables 5.10-13 and
5.10-14 show the estimated emissions of GHGs associated with electrical use under the businessas-usual and proposed project scenarios, respectively. Additional details regarding these calculations are found in Appendix I.
Emissions from Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment
Water supplied to the proposed project is a large user of electricity. Accordingly, the supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water would indirectly result in GHG emissions. The GHG emissions associated with water supply were based on the estimated water usage by the proposed project (RBF 2005), the estimated electrical usage associated with supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water (CEC 2006), and the same methodology as that for the project's electrical use. The business-as-usual scenario assumes that all of the project water would be provided as potable water from EMWD, while the proposed project would use reclaimed water from EMWD's San Jacinto wastewater treatment plant. Tables 5.10-13 and
5 The GHG emission factor for Southern California Edison will be substantially lower in 2033 due to compliance with SB 107, SB 1368, and measures adopted under AB 32 to increase the renewable energy portfolio for utilities.
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-50
5.10-14 show the estimated GHG emissions associated with water provided to the project users under the business-as-usual and proposed project scenarios, respectively.
Similarly, wastewater treatment requires electricity and would generate its own GHG emissions.
According to the Local Governmental Operations Protocol (CARB et al. 2008), CH4 emissions are associated with unburned digester gas (which contains CH4) and N2O is associated with some types of wastewater treatment and discharged to aquatic environments. The electrical usage associated with wastewater treatment was estimated using the same references as those for water supply (RBF 2005 and CEC 2006). The population-based estimates from the Local Governmental Operations Protocol were used to estimate CH4 and N2O emissions from wastewater treatment processes.
Tables 5.10-13 and 5.10-14 show the estimated emissions of GHGs associated with water supply and wastewater treatment under the business-as-usual and proposed project scenarios, respectively. Additional details regarding these calculations are found in Appendix I.
Table 5.10-13 lists the operational emission sources of GHGs for the proposed project. The project is estimated to result in GHG emissions of approximately 49,650 metric tons CO2E.
While the proposed project would result in emissions of GHGs, no guidance exists to indicate what level of GHG emissions would be considered substantial enough to result in a significant adverse impact on global climate. However, it is generally the case that an individual project is of insufficient magnitude by itself to influence climate change or result in a substantial contribution to the global GHG inventory. Thus, GHG impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective (CAPCOA 2008). Accordingly, further discussion of the project's GHG emissions and their impact on global climate are addressed in Section 6.
Table 5.10-13
Estimated Business-As-Usual Operational Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Source Metric Tons CO2E/Year Percent of Total
Motor Vehicles 43,181 75.13
Area Sources
Natural Gas Combustion 4,814 8.29
Hearth Combustion 19 0.03
Electrical Generation 4,694 8.17
Water Supply 4,340 7.55
Wastewater Treatment 429 0.75
Year 2033 Totals 57,478 100.00%
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-51
Table 5.10-14
Estimated Proposed Project Operational Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Source Metric Tons CO2E/Year Percent of Total
Motor Vehicles 36,488 73.49
Area Sources
Natural Gas Combustion 4,814 9.70
Hearth Combustion 19 0.04
Electrical Generation 4,694 9.46
Water Supply 3,056 6.16
Recycled Water Supply 147 0.30
Wastewater Treatment 429 0.86
Year 2033 Totals 49,648 100.00%
Comparing the results in Tables 5.10-3 and 5.10-14, the proposed project would result in a GHG emission reduction of 7,830 metric tons CO2E per year (14%) relative to the business-as-usual scenario. Implementation of the Specific Plan's Energy Efficiency Guidelines would provide additional benefits in terms of reduced natural gas and electrical usage and the associated GHG emissions. However, those emission reductions cannot be quantified because the Guidelines do not provide sufficient detail to compute the reduction in energy usage.
5.10.5 Mitigation Measures
Construction
5.10-a Consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403, it is required that fugitive dust generated by grading and construction activities be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site, by following the dust control measures listed below:
a) During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. b) During construction, water truck or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas later in the morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever winds exceed 15 miles per hour. c) Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
d) Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour.
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-52
e) Halt all grading and excavation operations when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour.
f) Dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces at the project site and on the adjacent roadways shall be swept, vacuumed, and/ or washed at the end of each workday. g) Should minor import/export of soil materials be required, all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose material to and from the construction site shall be tarped and maintain a minimum two feet of freeboard.
h) At a minimum, at each vehicle egress from the project site to a paved public road, install a pad consisting of washed gravel (minimum-size: one inch) maintained in a clean condition to a depth of at least six inches and extending at least 30 feet wide and at least 50 feet long (or as otherwise directed by SCAQMD). i) Review and comply with any additional requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403.
5.10-b The following shall be adhered to during project grading and construction to reduce VOC, NOx, and CO from construction equipment:
a) Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment manufactured after 1996 (with federally mandated “clean” diesel engines) shall be utilized. b) The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum size. c) The number of construction equipment operating simultaneously shall be minimized through efficient management practices to ensure that the smallest number is operating at any on time.
d) Construction equipment shall be maintained in tune per the manufacturer’s specifications.
e) Catalytic converters shall be installed on gasoline-powered equipment. f) Diesel catalytic converters shall be installed.
g) Diesel powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of electric equipment.
5.10-c The project developer shall use zero-Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)-content architectural coatings during project construction/ application of paints and other architectural coatings to reduce ozone precursors. If zero-VOC paint cannot be utilized, developer shall avoid application of architectural coatings during the peak smog season:
July, August, and September. Developer shall procure architectural coatings from a supplier in compliance with the requirements of SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings).
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-53
The following websites provide information/ lists of manufacturers related to zero-VOC content coatings:
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/paintguide.html
http://www.delta-institute.org/publications/paints.pdf
http://www.cleanaircounts.org/factsheets/FS%20PDF/Low%20VOC%20Paint.pdf Operational
Substantial reductions in emissions from proposed land use-related sources would be difficult, as these sources would mainly be low-emitting, natural gas-fired units. Nonetheless, optimization of energy conservation techniques in proposed building design would minimize emissions resulting from lighting and space heating demands and help reduce the overall project significant impact of ROG and NOx emissions. To help mitigate for operational impacts, the following shall occur.
5.10-d The applicant shall incorporate the following energy conservation measures into project building plans:
• Install low NOx water heaters and space heaters
• Install heat transfer modules in furnaces
• Use light-colored, water-based paint and light-colored roofing materials to the satisfaction of the City.
• Install solar panels for water heating systems and other facilities and/or use water heaters that heat water only on demand.
• Use passive solar cooling/heating.
• Maximize the use of natural lighting.
• Install energy efficient appliances and lighting.
• Use landscaping to shade buildings and parking lots.
In addition to the above area source mitigations/required site design features, the following mitigation measures are required in order to minimize long-term vehicular impacts:
• Provide preferential parking spaces for employee carpools and vanpools in the commercial and business park land uses.
• Install covered bus stops to encourage use of mass transportation. • Coordinate with the local transit agency to provide public transit to the project site.
5.10 AIR QUALITY
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.10-54
• Develop, in coordination with the City of San Jacinto, public outreach programs to promote alternative methods of transportation.
5.10-e To mitigate the traffic conditions that could result in potential CO "hotspots", the project applicant shall participate in funding off-site traffic improvements which are needed to serve cumulative future traffic conditions through payment of appropriate traffic mitigation fees (Riverside County TUMF and City of San Jacinto DIF fees). TUMF provides a key funding source for General Plan improvements within the project area, including the required improvements related to the Ramona Expressway. (It should be noted that this mitigation measure also appears as Mitigation Measure 5.9-e.)
5.10.6 Residual Impacts/ Level of Significance after Mitigation Implementation of the above mitigation measures would help reduce construction impacts; however, significant unmitigable impacts would remain. Operational impacts related to on-site and off-site odors and toxic air contaminants would remain or be mitigated to less-thansignificant levels with mitigation. The combined contribution of the project's area source and vehicular emissions would remain significant and unmitigable despite identified mitigation measures.
5.11 NOISE
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.11-1
5.11 NOISE
5.11.1 Introduction and Methodology
The following evaluation and discussion of potential noise impacts associated with the Villages of San Jacinto project implementation has been prepared as a complete technical noise study by Dudek.
This technical noise section evaluates noise effects of the project, including potential impacts from current and future ambient noise levels upon proposed land uses as well as noise generation potential from proposed land uses and activities within the Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan area. Noise generation sources from future implementation of the Specific Plan include traffic, school-related playground and sports activity, and mechanical equipment and exterior activities from commercial uses.
Terminology Used to Describe Sound
Please refer to Appendix J for detailed definitions of technical terms used in the description and evaluation of noise. The following descriptions are provided for direct reference in reviewing the information in this section.
Sound is defined as any pressure variation detected by the human ear. The preferred unit for measuring sound is the decibel (dB). The dB expresses the logarithmic ratio of the amount of energy radiating from a source in the form of an acoustic wave. Zero dB corresponds approximately to the threshold of healthy human hearing, while 120 to 140 dB correspond to an average person's threshold of pain.
The human ear is not equally responsive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. An electronic filter is normally used when taking noise measurements that de-emphasizes certain frequencies in a manner that mimics the human ear's response to sound; this method is referred to as A-weighting. Sound levels expressed under the A-weighted system are sometimes designated dB(A). All sound levels discussed in this report are A-weighted.
The equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is a single noise level that, if held constant during the specified time period, would represent the same total energy as a fluctuating noise. Leq values are commonly expressed for periods of 1 hour, but longer or shorter time periods may be specified.
The noise descriptor Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is typically used when describing community noise. CNEL averages the varying sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period and gives a 10 dB penalty to noises occurring between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and
5.11 NOISE
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.11-2
7:00 a.m. and a 5 dB penalty for noise between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., to take into account noise sensitivity during nighttime and evening hours, respectively.
Noise Criteria
General Plan Noise Element Criteria:
The City of San Jacinto has an adopted Noise Element in the City's General Plan (City of San Jacinto 2006). The City's Noise Element identifies the limits for "normally acceptable" exterior ambient noise levels at residential land uses to be 65 dB CNEL. Also, the Noise Element stipulates that the interior noise level not exceed 45 dB CNEL within the habitable rooms of residences.
The Noise Element also identifies 65 dB CNEL and 45 dB CNEL as the maximum exterior and interior noise levels (respectively) for commercial land uses such as office, retail, reception, and restaurant. For parks and recreation facilities, the exterior limit is also proposed to be 65 dB CNEL, but the interior noise level is proposed to be 50 dB CNEL for this land use category.
Noise sources that are not directly related to transportation, such as construction, manufacturing or business operations; agricultural operations; and property maintenance activities should be controlled to minimize exposure to excessive noise levels and reduce the impacts of noiseproducing land uses and activities on noise-sensitive land uses.
Municipal Code Noise Ordinance Criteria:
The City's noise ordinance (City of San Jacinto 2008) provides controls for excessive and annoying noise from stationary sources, such as air conditioning and refrigeration units, industrial development, and commercial activities. The ordinance also regulates construction activities within the City. Certain noise sources are prohibited, and the ordinance establishes an enforcement process.
Relative to construction noise, it is unlawful to create and emit noise from equipment operated during construction activities, whether on private property or within the public right of way between the hours of 7:00 p.m. of one day and 7:00 a.m. of the following day, and at any time on Sunday. Such equipment includes, but is not limited to, trucks, road graders, tractors, power saws, power drills, and generators.
5.11 NOISE
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.11-3
5.11.2 Existing Conditions
Project Setting
The project site is generally located south of Ramona Expressway and adjacent to the west side of North Sanderson Avenue in the City of San Jacinto. The primary existing noise source at the site is vehicular traffic along North Sanderson Avenue. The current average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on North Sanderson Avenue are provided in Table 5.11-1, Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes near Villages of San Jacinto.
Table 5.11-1
Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes near Villages of San Jacinto Location Existing ADT
Sanderson Avenue (north of Cottonwood Avenue) 13,700
Sanderson Avenue (south of Ramona Boulevard) 12,800
SOURCE: Urban Crossroads 2009
Ambient Noise Monitoring
Since the primary existing noise source affecting the property is North Sanderson Avenue, an original noise measurement was conducted within the subject property boundaries and adjacent to Sanderson Avenue to determine the existing noise level associated with Sanderson Avenue, and for use in calibrating the noise model. The measurement was made using a calibrated Larson-Davis Laboratories Model 700 (S.N. 2132) integrating sound level meter equipped with a Type 2551 onehalf-inch pre-polarized condenser microphone with pre-amplifier. When equipped with this microphone, the sound level meter meets the current American National Standards Institute standard for a Type 1 precision sound level meter. The sound level meter was positioned at a height of approximately 5 feet above the ground.
The original noise measurement location is depicted as Site 1 on Figure 5.11-1, Noise Measurement Locations. Site 1 is approximately 62 feet from the center line of Sanderson Avenue and is at approximately the same elevation as the roadway surface. The measured average noise level was 67 dB at Site 1. Table 5.11-2, Measured Average Sound Level at Villages of San Jacinto Site, shows the measured noise level and concurrent traffic volumes.
To more fully characterize existing noise conditions on the project site, a series of additional noise measurements were conducted. These supplemental noise measurement locations are depicted as Sites A to D on Figure 5.11-1, Noise Measurement Locations. The measured average noise levels at Sites A to D are illustrated in Table 5.11-2, Measured Average Sound Level at Villages of San Jacinto Site. Traffic counts were not conducted during the supplemental noise
5.11 NOISE
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.11-4
measurements, because the locations were at distances beyond the area influenced by existing traffic noise sources.
Table 5.11-2
Measured Average Sound Level at Villages of San Jacinto Site Site Description Date/Time Leq 1 Cars MT 2 HT 3
1 Approximately 62 feet to center line
of Sanderson Avenue
11/01/2004
1:00 p.m. to 1:20 p.m. 67 dB 208 10 13
A At property boundary for parcel to
the northwest
7/8/2009
11:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. 39 dB N.A. N.A. N.A.
B
At future Cawston Avenue
alignment, just north of future De
Anza Drive
7/8/2009
11:55 a.m. to 12:10 p.m. 41 dB N.A. N.A. N.A.
C Along Ramona Avenue, at northwest
corner of property
7/8/2009
12:20 p.m. to 12:35 p.m. 40 dB N.A. N.A. N.A.
D Along future Bridge Street, at
midpoint of southeast property line
7/8/2009
12:55 p.m. to 1:10 p.m. 42 dB N.A. N.A. N.A.
NOTES: Temperature 70°, clear sky, 2 miles-per-hour northerly wind (November 1, 2004) Temperature 88°, clear sky, 5 miles-per-hour southwest wind (July 8, 2009) 1 Equivalent continuous sound level (time-average sound level) 2 Medium trucks
3 Heavy trucks
Traffic Noise Modeling – Current Conditions
The existing CNEL along North Sanderson Avenue was determined based on the ambient noise measurement and using the current daily traffic volume for the road (with normalized medium and heavy truck percentages as provided by the County of Riverside) in the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA 2004). For the current condition, the modeled CNEL at Site 1 is 72 dB (Dudek and Associates 2006). It should be noted that this noise level is in terms of the CNEL and not the Leq as shown in Table 5.11-2.
The existing 65 dB CNEL contour from Sanderson Avenue within the Villages at San Jacinto project site is approximately 180 feet from the current center line of North Sanderson Avenue.
The noise measurements conducted at interior portions of the site verify that most of the property is not directly affected by this traffic noise source, with average measured noise levels in the 39 – 42 dB range.
5.11 NOISE
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.11-6
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5.11 NOISE
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.11-7
5.11.3 Significance Criteria
Based on the criteria identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant impact on noise if it would result in:
1. The exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies
2. The exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels
3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
5.11.4 Impacts
The project site would be exposed to existing and future traffic noise. Noise associated with the project would most likely result from project-generated traffic noise and noise from on-site commercial, school, and construction activities.
Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Traffic Noise Exposure
While only North Sanderson Avenue currently exists along the eastern boundary of the project site, the project site would eventually be served by three principal roadways oriented north/south and three principal roadways oriented east/west. The north/south roadways include Odell Avenue (western boundary), Cawston Avenue (central), and Sanderson Avenue (eastern boundary). The east/west roads include Ramona Boulevard South (northern boundary), De Anza Drive (central) and Bridge Street (southern boundary). Figure 5.11-2, Noise Contours Associated with Future Roadways, provides a graphical depiction of future roadway locations. These roadways are either on the boundary of the site or traverse the interior of the site and provide vehicular access from the site to the regional roadway network.
The public roadway system that abuts or traverses the site would carry project and regional traffic. To determine the future noise impact, City of San Jacinto General Plan build-out with project traffic volumes were used in the noise modeling (Urban Crossroads 2009). North Sanderson Avenue would have a future community build-out traffic volume ranging from 43,000
5.11 NOISE
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.11-8
to 44,600 ADT adjacent to the project site. The other roadways would have future ADT volumes ranging up to 16,900 ADT along Ramona Boulevard; 6,800 ADT along Odell Avenue; 9,000 ADT along Cawston Avenue; 9,000 ADT along De Anza Drive and 7,000 ADT along Bridge Street. It should be noted that two new freeways, State Route 79 (SR 79) and Mid County Parkway (MCP) are currently in various planning stages. Detailed design drawings are not available for these two freeways. However, it is anticipated that the alignments of both freeways would be located at least 1,000 or more feet from the project site. As the area develops, there would be buildings and other structures that would most likely provide shielding between the freeways and the project site that would substantially attenuate the traffic noise. However, for the purposes of this study, it is conservatively assumed that the potential noise contribution from future SR 79 and MCP freeways would be 60 dB CNEL at the north and east boundaries of the project site.
Utilizing the planned roadway sections and identified future traffic volumes (from project development and full build-out of the General Plan), traffic noise along each of the projectrelated roadways was modeled. The results of the noise modeling for roadway traffic noise are presented in Table 5.11-3, Modeled Future Sound Level along Project Roadways.
Table 5.11-3
Modeled Future Sound Level along Project Roadways
Distances from Center Line to CNEL Contours (feet)
Roadway 70 db 65 db 60 db
Sanderson Avenue 220 350 650
Ramona Boulevard South R/W 1 110 170
Odell Avenue R/W 1 50 120
Cawston Avenue
North of Bridge Street R/W 1 70 130
South of Bridge Street R/W 1 R/W 1 90
De Anza Drive R/W 1 70 130
Bridge Street R/W 1 55 120
1 Within right-of-way
Appendix J contains a summary of the noise roadway configuration, vehicle mix, and speed limit information used for each noise model run.
5.11 NOISE
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.11-10
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5.11 NOISE
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.11-11
Residential, commercial, school, and park land uses are proposed to be located immediately adjacent to the right-of-way for each of these roadway facilities with the exception of Odell Avenue. Therefore, with the exception of Odell Avenue, the potential exists for significant noise impacts to occur from exterior noise exposure above 65 dB CNEL for residential, commercial, school, and park uses located adjacent to the planned right-of-way for these roadway facilities. In order to reduce these potential impacts, mitigation is provided (see Section 5.11.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measures 5.11-a and 5.11-f).
Off-Site Noise Impacts Associated With Project Traffic
Traffic-related noise impacts, especially in the context of a Specific Plan analysis, must primarily evaluate the future noise environment resulting from long-range community build-out. This is performed by using the traffic volumes anticipated from General Plan build-out, as assessed by the assigned project transportation engineer. Future project traffic volumes within the development are largely derived from the project itself, and are addressed by noise barriers and other measures (see Section 5.11.5, Mitigation Measures, and Figure 5.11-3, Noise Barrier Heights and Locations). With distribution of project-generated trips onto the area roadway network off site, the noise attributable to project-contributed trips versus regional traffic becomes largely indistinguishable. An extensive level of cumulative development is anticipated to occur within the San Jacinto region. Sanderson Avenue is the primary off-site roadway that exists today and is that which will bear the majority of immediate project-related traffic. The noise level associated with the existing traffic volumes on Sanderson Avenue is compared against the noise levels resulting from existing-plus-project traffic (Phase I), and from traffic volumes for build-out of the General Plan (including the project volumes for Phases I–IV). The results are presented in Table 5.11-, Project Contribution to Off-Site Traffic Noise (Off-Site Traffic Noise Level Increase).
Table 5.11-4
Project Contribution to Off-Site Traffic Noise (Off-Site Traffic Noise Level Increase) Street (Segment) Existing
ADT
Existing +
Project
(Year 2015)
ADT
CNEL
Increase1
(dB)
Existing +
General Plan
Build-Out
ADT
Existing +
Project +
General Plan
Build-Out
ADT
CNEL
Increase2
(dB)
Sanderson Avenue
South of Ramona Blvd. 12,800 16,100 1 41,600 43,000 5
Cottonwood Ave. to future SR 79 13,700 15,900 1 53,200 61,600 7 1 Existing vs. existing-plus-project noise increase 2 Existing vs. General Plan build-out, including project In the near term (year 2015), the project would increase the existing ambient noise level by 1 dB CNEL. This noise level increase is less than significant.
5.11 NOISE
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.11-12
In the long term, the increase in traffic noise from the proposed project and cumulative developments (i.e., General Plan build-out) is calculated to range from 5 to 7 dB, which is a noticeable change in the noise environment. The noise increase associated with traffic from cumulative developments is therefore considered potentially significant. However, the project's contribution to cumulatively significant traffic noise impacts is less than significant (1 dB or less increase, which by itself is not a discernible increase). Consequently, mitigation is not required for the project's contribution to off-site noise impacts associated with General Plan build-out traffic volumes but is required for the cumulatively significant impact (see Section 5.11.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.11-a).
Noise Generation Associated with Commercial Land Uses
A retail commercial area and mixed-use area are proposed at the southern end of the subject property. The land uses at the commercial site could include neighborhood retail uses, such as a grocery store, drug store, cleaners, restaurants, fast food, and specialty stores. The mixed-use area could provide a broad range of land uses, including a library, police and fire facilities, dental and medical offices, real estate offices, banks, coffee shop, printers, and postal/shipping outlets.
The commercial and mixed-use areas are generally buffered from on-site residential land uses by a park. The proposed commercial areas are located immediately adjacent to an existing off-site municipal wastewater treatment plant that would not be a noise-sensitive receptor. Residential land uses exist east of the proposed commercial area, across Sanderson Avenue; these residential land uses are currently protected by a sound-wall along Sanderson Avenue.
Sources of commercial and mixed-use noise typically include activities at loading/unloading docks and parking lots, heating/ventilation and air conditioning equipment (HVAC), maintenance activities, and additional truck traffic along adjacent roads.
Noise levels associated with the commercial and mixed-use activities would vary depending on the number of delivery trucks, loading dock areas, and customer traffic generated by the commercial site. Similarly, HVAC equipment noise would vary depending on the number and types of equipment selected. Typical roof-top HVAC packaged units generate noise levels of approximately 70 dB at 10 feet from the source. In order to avoid any potential impacts related to commercial use noise, mitigation is provided (see Section 5.11.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.11-b).
5.11 NOISE
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.11-14
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5.11 NOISE
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.11-15
School-Related Noise Concerns
A high school is designated as part of the proposed specific plan project. Schools are both noisesensitive and noise generating. The high school would be located at the southwest corner of Ramona Boulevard and Cawston Avenue. The future exterior traffic noise at the high school site would exceed a CNEL of 65 dB as previously depicted in Figure 5.11-2. Traffic-related noise exposure levels within exterior use areas for the school (i.e., sports fields, athletic courts, etc.) could exceed acceptable noise standards, thereby resulting in potentially significant noise impacts. In order to avoid potentially significant noise impacts, mitigation is provided (see Section 5.11.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measures 5.11-c).
Future school buildings that are located in areas exposed to a noise level greater than 60 dB CNEL could exceed an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL. In order to avoid these potentially significant impacts, mitigation is provided (see Section 5.11.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.11-c, 5.11-d and 5.11-e).
The proposed high school would be located adjacent to future residences along the west side of the site and also east of Cawston Avenue. Noise associated with schools generally consists of traffic noise and outdoor activities. Noise created by and emanating during the conduct of any authorized school activity upon school grounds is specifically excluded from the restrictions of the City's noise ordinance. However, some residents living adjacent to the high school may find the noise emanating from the school to be annoying. Therefore, a mitigation measure is provided to notify neighbors of the potential for this nuisance noise (see Section 5.11.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.11- d).
Short-Term Noise Impacts (Construction-Related Noise)
The applicant has indicated that build-out of the project would occur in four major phases, with construction beginning in 2011. Please refer to Section 3.0, Project Description, for a detailed discussion of the project phasing schedule and construction phasing exhibit. Because the development of the project would occur in distinct phases, portions of the development will be completed and occupied during the construction of subsequent project phases; the occupied project phases have the potential to be impacted by noise from ongoing construction activities.
Development activities for each phase of project construction would involve a four-step sequence: (1) demolition, (2) site preparation, (3) building construction, and (4) paving. Mass grading for the entire site would occur during Phase I. Specific project construction details and equipment fleet specifications are not available at this time; however, for the air quality analysis, a worst-case equipment fleet was derived. Please refer to Table 5.11-3, Heavy Construction Equipment, for an estimate of assumed heavy construction equipment requirements for project construction. The equipment information in Table 5.11-3 is meant to represent a reasonable
5.11 NOISE
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.11-16
worst-case estimate of construction equipment employment. As a summary, the derived equipment list for construction includes the following types of construction equipment:
• Tractor/Backhoe
• Bulldozer
• Loader
• Scraper
• Grader
• Off-Highway Water Truck
• Roller
• Crane
• Forklift
• Trencher
• Paving Equipment
• Paver
• Surfacing Equipment.
As demonstrated by the summary above, construction equipment anticipated for project development includes only standard equipment that would be employed for any routine construction project of this scale; construction equipment with substantially higher noise generation characteristics (such as pile drivers, rock drills, or blasting equipment) would not be needed for development of the proposed project. Based upon the standard construction equipment anticipated to be employed for project development, short-term noise associated with the grading and construction could result in maximum noise levels of up to approximately 90 dB measured 50 feet from the noise source (FTA 2006). Noise attenuation for a point source occurs over distance at a rate of approximately 6 dB every time the distance from the source is doubled.
Therefore, at a distance of 900 feet from the source of the noise, noise attenuation would reduce typical construction-related maximum noise levels from 90 dB to 65 dB.
With respect to the proposed construction phasing schedule and the above discussion, constructed and occupied residences that are located within 900 feet of an area under construction could potentially experience nuisance noise (i.e., average noise levels above 65 dB).
The generation of noise from construction activities during sensitive time periods upon completed and occupied components of the project is considered a significant nuisance. As such, projectgenerated construction noise would pose a potentially significant effect on noise-sensitive
5.11 NOISE
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.11-17
receptors if construction hour limitations are not imposed. However, with adherence to a restricted construction schedule dictating project-related site preparation and construction activities, consistent with the City's noise ordinance, significant construction-related noise impacts could be avoided. In order to avoid potentially significant construction-related noise impacts, mitigation is provided (see Section 5.11.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.11-f).
Would the project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Ground-borne vibration is typically attenuated over short distances. The heavier pieces of construction equipment that may be used at this site include a dozer, scraper, excavator and loaded materials trucks. These types of construction equipment would be located approximately 50 or more feet from the closest existing residences. Based on the anticipated construction equipment, the demolition of existing structures and excavation of the site could generate perceptible vibrations at some residences in the project vicinity. However, the vibration levels would be below levels that would significantly disturb the residences. Additionally, construction hours will be limited by the City's noise ordinance. Therefore, the potential vibration impacts to these residential structures are less than significant. Once construction is completed, the project would not generate groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
Would the project result in substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A permanent increase in ambient noise levels will occur in the project vicinity with implementation of the project due to added traffic volumes. However, as discussed above, the project's contribution to significant traffic noise impacts is less than significant (a 1 dB or less increase, which by itself is not a discernible increase).
5.11.5 Mitigation Measures
5.11-a Residential lots located adjacent to Sanderson Avenue shall include an 11-foot-high noise barrier; residential lots adjacent to Ramona Boulevard and Cawston Avenue (between Ramona Boulevard and De Anza Drive) shall require noise barriers a minimum of 6 feet in height. The project noise barriers must have a surface density of at least 4 pounds per square foot, and have no openings or cracks. The noise barriers may be constructed of acrylic glass, any masonry material, earthern berm, or a combination of these materials.
5.11-b Individual acoustical analyses shall be prepared as part of site plan/development plan review for future commercial development applications submitted to the City, to ensure noise levels would comply with the City's General Plan noise standards (maximum exterior noise levels of 65 dB CNEL; maximum interior noise levels of 45 dB CNEL) and not result in significant noise impacts at adjacent park land or residences. The
5.11 NOISE
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.11-18
applicant for each commercial development proposal shall be required to commission or fund the required acoustical analysis. Although the future building-specific noise study will determine exact specifications, it is likely that interior noise mitigation would consist of sound-rated windows and mechanical ventilation systems for the commercial buildings. All required noise control measures identified in the acoustical analysis shall be made conditions of ultimate development approval to ensure that all measures are implemented to fully mitigate anticipated noise impacts.
5.11-c For the high school site, the specified noise barriers along Ramona Boulevard and Cawston Avenue shall be installed to protect exterior use areas of the site from trafficrelated noise.
5.11-d A Notice-to-Property Owner shall be recorded on a separate buyer information sheet with the final map providing notice to potential future property owners in the vicinity of the school site (i.e., Planning Areas 1, 3, and 19) stating that they could be exposed to noise associated with outdoor activities at the high school. The disclosure will function to make potential buyers aware of the anticipated noise levels/impacts, such that particularly noise-sensitive individuals would have the opportunity to decide against purchase of a home which is subject to these periodic noise conditions.
5.11-e For residences proposed within the future 60 dB CNEL contour, an interior acoustical analysis shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure that the interior CNEL would not exceed 45 dB. Interior noise mitigation would most likely consist of sound-rated windows and mechanical ventilation systems for the homes. All required noise control measures identified in the acoustical analysis shall be made conditions of building permit issuance.
5.11-f Future project-related site preparation and construction activities shall be conducted in accordance with the City's noise ordinance. No construction shall occur Sundays or federal holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving, July 4th, Labor Day, etc.). Construction operation and equipment maintenance shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Non-noisegenerating construction activities, such as interior painting, are not subject to these restrictions.
5.11.6 Residual Impacts/Level of Significance after Mitigation With implementation of the mitigation measures included in Section 5.11.5 to ensure that adequate noise control elements are designed and implemented for the proposed development, potential noise impacts would be less than significant and residual impacts would not occur.
Figure 5.11-4 Noise Contours with Mitigation illustrates the residual noise levels under future traffic conditions, and with installation of prescribed noise walls. 65 60
70 60
65 65 65
60 60
60 60
SOURCE: C & V Consulting, Inc. February 2009
FIGURE Villages of San Jacinto EIR
Future Noise Contours with Mitigation 5.11-4
02,000
Feet
Future Noise Contours with Mitigation
60 db
65 db
70 db
Noise Barriers
11’ Noise Barrier
6’ Noise Barrier
5.11 NOISE
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.11-20
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-1
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
5.12.1 Introduction and Methodology
This section discusses public services and utilities necessary to serve the proposed Villages of San Jacinto and includes an analysis of potential project impacts to fire and police protection services, parks and recreation and, schools facilities; the availability of wastewater treatment facilities, stormwater drainage facilities, domestic water supply resources, and solid waste disposal and recycling.
Potential project impacts associated with increased demand on public services including fire, police, park and recreational facilities were evaluated per correspondence with City fire, police and regional park personnel and per the criteria identified in the City of San Jacinto Development Impact Fee Justification Study, prepared by David Taussig & Associates, Inc., approved by the City in October 2005. Impacts to school facilities associated from increased demand resulting from project development were analyzed pursuant to correspondence with school district personnel and utilizing the San Jacinto Unified School District Residential Development School Fee Justification Study and the Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study prepared by David Taussig & Associates, Inc., February 13, 2004.
The availability of adequate domestic water supply and infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed Villages of San Jacinto area was determined by a Water Supply Assessment Report prepared by the Eastern Municipal Water District, December 15, 2004, and a letter dated May 11, 2009, confirming their previous conclusions. Both documents are included in Appendix K. In addition, the availability of water, wastewater and drainage facilities and related infrastructure required to serve the project were evaluated through a November 2005 Study prepared by RBF, the May 2006 Preliminary Drainage Study for TTM 34081 prepared by RBF, the August 2006 Phase 1, and 2 Drainage Study prepared by RBF, the December 12, 2006, Preliminary Drainage Analysis for Phases 1, 1A, 1B and 1C prepared by RBF and the February 23, 2009, Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for the Villages of San Jacinto by JLC Engineering & Consulting Inc. (all included as Appendix G). Impacts associated with solid waste production and disposal and availability of recycling facilities were analyzed be means of evaluating the availability of sufficient landfill capacity to receive solid waste generated by the proposed development, including construction-generated wastes and projected, long-term residential and commercial-generated wastes, and the ability of the proposed development and City programs to meet State mandated recycling requirements.
Unlike other environmental impact sections in this EIR, this section is organized by category instead of a discussion of all existing conditions followed by significance criteria followed by impacts and finally a discussion of mitigation. Section 5.12 is instead organized by topic. Each
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-2
topic includes a description of existing conditions, followed by significance criteria associated with the specific topic, impact assessment, mitigation measures and finally a discussion of the impact after mitigation. For example, Fire Protection – first a discussion of existing conditions is provided, then the relevant significance criteria related to fire protection, followed by an impact discussion on fire protection and finally a discussion of relevant mitigation measures. After a complete discussion of fire protection, police protection is provided and so on. It was determined that this method of analysis presentation would be easier to follow. Existing and Proposed Public Facilities and Service Systems are depicted on Figures 5.12-1, Existing Public Services and Facilities, 5.12-2, Master Sewer Plan and 5.12-3, Master Water Plan.
5.12.2 Fire Protection
Existing Conditions
Fire protection services are provided throughout the City of San Jacinto under contract by the Riverside County Fire Department (RCOFD)/California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire). The Departments provide services for fire suppression, emergency medical services, hazardous materials team response, fire prevention, public education, disaster preparedness and operations planning and staff training. The Riverside County Fire Department is staffed with 1,300 career employees (contracted from California Department of Fire), 300 Riverside County personnel, and 750 volunteer fire fighters, and currently serves approximately
1.6 million residents within an approximate area of 7,000 square miles. This service area consists of the unincorporated County areas, fourteen contract cities, one Community Service District, and one correctional corporation. The City of San Jacinto is served by Fire Station No. 25 located at 132 South San Jacinto Avenue, approximately 3 miles from the project area. Seven city firefighters (3 on duty each day) and approximately 5 volunteer personnel are assigned to Station No. 25 which maintains one city and one state fire engine. The City is also served by Station No. 78, located at 2450 West Cottonwood Avenue, approximately one mile south from the project site. This Station is currently staffed with 8 city firefighters and maintains one city fire engine for daily operations. (Personal Communication, Fire Captain Tim Chavez, June 25, 2009).
Significance Criteria
1. 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 fire protection? Existing Public Services and Facilities
Village of San Jacinto EIR FIGURE 5.12-1
00. Miles
5 RAMONA EXPRESSWAY
SANDERSON AV
RAMONA BLVD
WARREN RD
COTTONWOOD AV
7TH STREET
STATE ST
DE ANZA DR
LYON AV
Existing Public Services
FirePoliceSchoolExisting Potable WaterlineExisting Reclaimed WaterlineExisting 8" ForcemainProject Site
MAIN ST
SAN JACINTO ST ESPLANADE AV
ExistingTreatmentPlant
ExistingDe AnzaLift Station
I
COLORADO RIVER AQUEDUCT
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-4
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
” SS15
1” SS0
S10” S
FIGURE Villages of San Jacinto EIR
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Facilities 5.12-2
SPECIFIC MAP SOURCE: T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS, February 2009
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-6
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
SOURCE: RBF Consulting, January 2007
Floodplain / Ponded Area
FIGURE Villages of San Jacinto EIR
Proposed Phase 1-1C Interim Drainage Scenario 5.12-3
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-8
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-9
Impacts
The proposed Villages of San Jacinto is located within an existing fire protection service area.
The City of San Jacinto Development Impact Fee Justification Study, states that City staff has determined existing public facilities to be sufficient to meet the current health, safety, and welfare needs of existing residents and employees (City of San Jacinto 2009). The development of the Villages of San Jacinto would result in an incremental increase in the local demand for fire services. Calls for emergency fire protection and emergency medical services generated from the new development are expected to be similar to that of other suburban residential and commercial areas within the City. Potential hazards and medical emergencies can be adequately addressed with the types of equipment typically found at City fire stations (e.g., response vehicles, EMT equipment) and the proposed project's internal circulation network would provide access to individual home sites and commercial areas from major roadways and would facilitate any necessary community evacuation plans.
The development of the Villages of San Jacinto would result in an incremental increase in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services and, when combined with the increased demand associated with other potential development projects within the project area, additional fire personnel, support staff, and related equipment and facilities would ultimately be required to effectively meet the demands of the proposed development and that of anticipated future development in the surrounding area.
Although the development of the proposed Villages of San Jacinto will not independently impact existing fire services, the City recognizes that new residential and non-residential development in the City within the next 15 years will generate additional residents and employees which will result in increased service calls and increased demand for fire protection personnel and facilities.
The City of San Jacinto Development Impact Fee Justification Study identifies the City's determination that four new fire stations and one new fire training facility, and a number of additional service vehicles, will be needed to adequately service new development in the City within the next 15-year period. The Development Impact Fee Justification Study evaluates the need for new fire facilities as it relates to the level of service demanded by new development, which varies in proportion to the equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) generated by a specific land use. When evaluating the level of service demand for new fire protection facilities associated with new development, specific land uses (single family residential, retail commercial and nonretail commercial) are assigned an EDU factor that is derived from the number of persons per residential unit or the number of employees per commercial acreage.
The proposed development would result in a minor incremental increase in demand for fire protection services and, with consideration of future cumulative increases in demand for fire protection services associated with other development proposals and area-wide growth, could
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-10
potentially result in decreased levels of service within the project area and city-wide. The proposed project would, therefore, result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to fire protection services. However, feasible mitigation has been identified which would require the developer to pay appropriate development impact mitigation fees which would be used exclusively for future facility improvements as discussed above to ensure that the development contributes its fair share of the cost of the fire facilities and equipment determined to be necessary to adequately accommodate new development in the City. Development of the proposed school site into single-family homes, allowing for a maximum of 1,329 dwelling units would create the highest demand for fire protection services. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.12-a would ensure that the appropriate mitigation fees are contributed by the development to aid in acquiring the additional resources needed to reduce potential cumulative impacts to fire services to less than significant levels. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with fire protection services are potentially significant. In order to avoid potential impacts, mitigation is provided (see Section 5.12.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.12-a).
Mitigation Measures
5.12-a The Developer shall be required to pay the Development Impact Mitigation Fees, as determined to be necessary by the development agreement, City Community Development Department and Public Works Department to offset impacts on City fire services. The current fee amount is outlined in Table 5.12-1, Fire Facilities Fee Derivation Summary.
Table 5.12-1
Fire Facilities Fee Derivation Summary*
Land Use
Residents/
Employees per
Unit/Acre
EDUs per
Unit/Acre
Number of
Proposed
EDUs/Acres
Development
Impact Fee per
Unit/Acre
Total Facility
Impact Fee
Single Family 3.05 1.00 1,329** $212 $281,748
Retail Commercial 15.03 4.93 22.7 $1,042 $23,653
Non-Retail Commercial 12.70 4.16 26.3 $880 $23,144
Total $328,545
* Fees are based on those established by the City at the time this RDEIR No. 2 was prepared. Fees may be adjusted in the future as building permits are requested for each specific phase.
** Assumes worse-case scenario that the proposed school site will be developed into single-family homes Residual Impacts/Level of Significance after Mitigation The proposed Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan includes development standards that would apply to all future build-out of the planning area which specifically includes development elements and/or policies and measures to ensure that adequate public facilities and services such
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-11
as fire protection are provided in conjunction with build-out of the development. With implementation of the additional mitigation measure above, impacts to fire protection services/facilities would be less than significant.
5.12.3 Police Protection
Existing Conditions
The San Jacinto Police department, located approximately three miles from the project area at 160 West Sixth Street, provides police protection in the City of San Jacinto. As of May 2009, police services are provided throughout the City of San Jacinto under contract by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The police department employs a total of 48 staff employees, consisting of 39 sworn personnel (including the police chief, captains, detectives, juvenile officer, and training support supervisor) and 9 non-sworn personnel (community service officers, dispatch supervisor, dispatchers, communications specialist); and maintains 22 marked patrol units, 8 unmarked units and 3 volunteer automobiles. The Department operates in 3 shifts per day, consisting of 3 deputies and 1 sergeant. Emergency call response times for priority 1 calls in the City of San Jacinto average just over four minutes, which is considered slightly below the average and acceptable response times defined by the County Sheriff's Department for other contract City and County police departments. (Personal Communication, Sergeant Brian Tonseth, June 26, 2009).
Significance Criteria
2. 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 police protection? Impacts
The proposed project would result in a maximum of 1,329 residential dwelling units, assuming that the proposed high school would be developed with single-family homes. The development of the school site into single-family homes would create the greatest impact to police protection services and, therefore, that scenario is analyzed. In addition, the proposed project would include public parks and other passive recreational facilities, 22.7 acres of general commercial development, and 26.3 acres of mixed-use development. The proposed Villages of San Jacinto is serviced by the City of San Jacinto Police Department which currently maintains acceptable levels of emergency call response times as defined by the County Sheriff's Department for other contract City and County police departments. The development of the Specific Plan area would
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-12
result in an incremental increase in the local demand for police services. Police personnel have indicated that the project area is located in a relatively rural area of limited development where few calls are currently received and attended; therefore, project development will likely result in an increase in the Department's average response time when attending calls from the proposed development (Tonseth, personal communication, June 26, 2009).
The development of the Villages of San Jacinto would result in an incremental increase in demand on police services and, when combined with the demand associated with anticipated population growth and other potential development projects within the project area, additional police personnel, support staff, and related equipment and facilities would be required to effectively meet the demands of the proposed development as well as anticipated future development in the surrounding area. However, the increased demand that would occur with development of the Villages of San Jacinto would be a small portion of the anticipated area-wide increased demand associated with overall population growth and other development projects within the project area. Therefore, increased demand for police protection services resulting from development of the Villages of San Jacinto would be minor and incremental in nature and is not expected to substantially diminish existing service levels of police response or necessitate the construction of any new police facilities (or the expansion of any existing police facilities) that could entail changes in the physical environment. Therefore, impacts to police services would be less than significant.
Although the development of the proposed Villages of San Jacinto would not independently impact existing police services, the City recognizes that new residential and non-residential development in the City of San Jacinto within the next 15-years would generate additional residents and employees, which would result in increased service calls and increased demand for police protection personnel and facilities. The City of San Jacinto Draft Development Impact Fee Justification Study identifies the City's determination that one new police facility and a number of additional service vehicles would be needed to adequately service new development in the City within the next 15-year period. The Draft Development Impact Fee Justification Study evaluates the need for new police facilities as it relates to the level of service demanded by new development, which varies in proportion to the equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) generated by a specific land use. When evaluating the level of service demand for new police protection facilities associated with new development, land uses are assigned an EDU factor that is derived from the number of calls for police services generated for specific land uses (single family residential, multiple family residential, retail commercial, and non-retail commercial).
The proposed development would result in a minor incremental increase in demand for police services and, with consideration of future cumulative increases in demand for police services associated with other development proposals and area-wide growth, could potentially result in decreased levels of service within the project area and city-wide. The proposed project would,
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-13
therefore, contribute to potentially significant cumulative impacts to police services. However, feasible mitigation has been identified which would require the developer to pay appropriate development impact mitigation fees which would be used exclusively for the future facility improvements as discussed above to ensure that the development contributes its fair share of the cost of the police facilities and equipment determined to be necessary to adequately accommodate new development in the City. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with police services are potentially significant. In order to reduce potential impacts, mitigation is provided (see Section 5.12.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.12-b).
Mitigation Measures
5.12-b The Developer shall be required to pay the Development Impact Mitigation Fees, as determined to be necessary by the development agreement, City Community Development Department and Public Works Department to offset impacts on police services. Current fee amounts are summarized in Table 5.12-2, Police Facilities Fee Derivation Summary.
Table 5.12-2
Police Facilities Fee Derivation Summary*
Land Use
Call
Generation
Rate
EDUs per
Unit/Acre
Number of
Proposed EDUs
Development
Impact Fee per
Unit/Acre
Total Facility
Impact Fee
Single Family 3.05 1.00 1,329** $198 $263,142
Retail Commercial 15.03 4.93 22.7 $2,012 $45,672
Non-Retail Commercial 12.70 4.16 26.3 $2,012 $52,916
Total $361,730
* Fees are based on those established by the City at the time this RDEIR No. 2 was prepared. Fees may be adjusted in the future as building permits are requested for each specific phase.
** Assumes worse-case scenario that school site will be developed into single-family homes Residual Impacts/Level of Significance after Mitigation The proposed Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan includes development standards that would apply to all future build-out of the planning area which specifically includes development elements and/or policies and measures to ensure that adequate public facilities and services such as police protection are provided in conjunction with build-out of the development. With implementation of the additional mitigation measure above, impacts to police protection services/facilities would be less than significant.
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-14
5.12.4 Parks and Recreation
Existing Conditions
The City of San Jacinto owns and maintains three parks throughout the City including Salle Park (3.5 to 4 acres) located near Monte Vista School, Mistletoe Park (5 acres) located on Main Street, and Rancho San Jacinto Park (7 acres). In addition, a 36-acre regional park, owned and operated by the Valley Wide Park and Recreation District, is located at 901 W. Esplanade in San Jacinto and includes a 22,000-square-foot sports center, six lighted tennis courts, seven baseball/softball diamonds, six soccer fields, picnic areas with barbecues and play equipment, batting cages, administration offices, outside basketball and volleyball courts, and six horseshoe pits. None of these park facilities are located in the vicinity of the proposed Villages of San Jacinto project site.
The City's General Plan Land Use Map indicates that a total of approximately 44.7 acres of land area on the project site is currently designated for Open Space- Recreation (OS-R) land use. The General Plan indicates that the OS-R category allows for preservation of open space as well as outdoor recreational facilities.
Significance Criteria
3. 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 parks? Impacts
As seen in Table 5.12-3, Proposed Open Space Designation, the proposed Villages of San Jacinto project includes a total of 105.4 acres of open space/recreation uses. There will be a total of 43 acres of parks provided on site, including three public parks (40.8 acres) and two private neighborhood parks (2.2 acres). The largest of these parks is the 33.4-acre public Community Park north of Bridge Street in the southern portion of the proposed development. Other recreational amenities include a 5.1-acre Lake House Beach Club and Swim Lagoon. The 11- acre private lake will be located adjacent to the Swim Lagoon. It will feature a concrete trail surrounding lake and connecting to the community park. A total of 9.6 acres of landscaped walkways or "paseos" will serve as pedestrian linkages between land uses and will create landscaped buffer areas between Planning Areas. These paseos will be a minimum of 50 feet wide and have 10-foot-wide concrete trails. The proposed Villages of San Jacinto would result in
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-15
an increase in the 44.7 acres of land area within the project area presently designated for open space to a total of 105.4 acres.
Table 5.12-3
Proposed Open Space Designation
Land Use Type Acres
Public Neighborhood and Community Parks 40.8
Private Neighborhood Parks 2.2
Paseos 9.6
Drainage/Basins 15.2
Lake Surfaces 11.0
Landscape Easements 2.4
Water Quality Detention Basin 24.2
Total 105.4
The City's General Plan requires that developers of residential projects provide adequate parkland equal to 5 acres per 1,000 residents and non-residential development provide parkland equal to 2.5 acres per employee. Based on factors in the Development Fee Justification Study (Table 5.12-1), the project would result in up to 4,054 residents (1,329 units × 3.05 residents per dwelling unit) creating the need for 20 acres of parkland. Employees associated with the project would create the need for approximately 2 acres of parkland for a total of 22 acres. Since the project provides 41 acres of public parkland, it would exceed the General Plan requirement and no mitigation is required. It should be noted that, in the previous recirculated DEIR (January 2007), a park mitigation fee was required due to the private nature of proposed parks.
Because the project provides adequate public parkland, this is no longer the case and the fee is not required. Therefore, development of the Villages of San Jacinto would have an overall beneficial impact to the supply of park land and recreational opportunities to new residents of this community and the public.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Residual Impacts/Level of Significance after Mitigation The proposed Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan includes development standards that would apply to all future build-out of the planning areas. These standards specifically include development elements and/or policies and measures to ensure that adequate public facilities and services, such as parks and recreational facilities, are provided in conjunction with build-out of the development. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant.
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-16
5.12.5 Schools
Existing Conditions
The project site is located in the San Jacinto Unified School District (SJUSD) which serves approximately 7,000 students in eight primary K-5 schools, two middle 6–8 schools and two 9– 12 high schools (website accessed May 5, 2009, http://www.sanjacinto.k12.ca.us/). The City's Land Use Map indicates that two future school sites are planned at the project site.
The closest existing elementary school site to the project area is De Anza Elementary located at 1089 De Anza Drive. The proposed project includes a potential new high school facility which would serve students of the proposed development. Should the proposed high school site not be included in the final build-out of the development, San Jacinto High School, located at 500 Idyllwild Drive, would accommodate high schools students from the project area. Monte Vista Middle School, located at 181 North Ramona Boulevard, would accommodate middle school students from the project area.
According to the San Jacinto Unified School District Residential Development School Fee Justification Study, prepared by David Taussig & Associates, Inc., February 13, 2004, the overall capacity of the District facilities was 7,456 students (including the addition of 7 portables at the elementary level), determined per Section 17071.10 of the California Education Code. The Study determined that of the 7,456 seats, 4,065 were at the elementary level, 1,418 were at the middleschool level, and 1,973 were at the high school level. The study determined that student enrollment in the 2003–2004 school year exceeded the District's facilities at the elementary level, but fell 354 and 158 seats short of the District's middle and high school capacity levels, respectively.
District personnel have indicated that facilities of the San Jacinto Unified School District currently exceed design capacity and the District has been adding additional portable classrooms to accommodate enrollment levels. Of the thirty portable classrooms currently planned to be installed, twenty will be used for elementary students and ten will be used for middle school students. In addition, the District is currently pursuing two new elementary school sites; however, these planned school sites are incorporated into other development proposals and would not accommodate new students generated by the proposed development (Arthur 2004).
Significance Criteria
4. 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,
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-17
response times or other performance objectives for fire other public facilities such as schools?
Impacts
The proposed project would result in development of a maximum 1,329 dwelling units, assuming worse case that the proposed school site is developed into single-family homes. The proposed project would also include 22.7 acres of general commercial development, a 26.3-acre mixed-use development, and would also potentially include a 69.1 acre site for a new high school that would accommodate up to 2,000 students. However, as discussed above, existing school facilities in the City are currently at capacity or exceeding capacity at all education levels and the development of future residences on the property would produce new demand for school resources. As such, new development in the City of San Jacinto would result in an increase in residents and employees within the City and would thereby increase demand on school facilities potentially resulting in a significant impact to schools which are already at or approaching maximum enrollment capacity levels.
The San Jacinto Unified School District utilizes student generation rates as published in the District's Residential Development School Fee Justification Study and the Commercial/ Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study to determine the projected number of students that would be generated for a new development proposal. Table 5.12-4, Residential Project Student Generation, contains the anticipated student generation that would result from the proposed residential development and Table 5.12-5, Commercial Project Student Generation, contains the anticipated student generation that would result from the proposed commercial development. The total projected student generation is based on student generation factors contained in the Residential Development School Fee Justification Study and the Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study as provided by the School District.
Table 5.12-4
Residential Project Student Generation
School District/
Grade Level
Residential
Unit Type # of Units
Generation Factor
(Students/Unit) Total Students
Proposed Project
Elementary
K–6 Single-Family 1,3291 0.4832 642
Middle School
7–8 Single-Family 1,3291 0.1320 175
High School
9–12 Single-Family 1,3291 0.2302 306
Total Student Generation 1,123
1 Assumes worse-case scenario that proposed school site will be developed into single-family homes
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-18
Based on the proposed number and type of residential units and student generation rates as presented in Table 5.12-3, Residential Project Student Generation, the proposed project would generate 642 elementary school students, 175 middle school students and 306 high school students. A total of 1,123 students would be generated by the proposed residential development.
In addition, based on the proposed land use type and the amount of new commercial square footage, and student generation rates as presented in Table 5.12-5, Commercial Project Student Generation, the proposed project would generate 93 elementary school students, 25 middle school students and 45 high school students for a total of 163 new students and a combined total of 1,286 students.
Table 5.12-5
Commercial Project Student Generation
School District/
Grade Level Proposed Land Use Square Footage
Student Generation/
1,000 Square Feet Total Students
Elementary
K–6 Retail 247,000 0.1188 29
Mixed-Use 343,400 0.1856 64
Subtotal K–6 93
Middle School
7-8 Retail 247,000 0.0322 8
Mixed-Use 343,400 0.0503 17
Subtotal 7–8 25
High School
9-12 Retail 247,000 0.0572 14
Mixed-Use 343,400 0.0895 31
Subtotal 9–12 45
Total Student Generation 163
The proposed project would be required to pay state-mandated school facilities fees (per Government Code Section 65996) at a maximum of $4.46 per residential square foot and $0.47 per square foot of new commercial development per current requirements. These fees may be adjusted by the state in the future as building permits for each phase are requested. Payment of such fees represents full mitigation for impacts to schools (see Section 5.12.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.12-c). Additionally, the proposed project would potentially include the designation of a new 69.1-acre high school site, to be located in the northwest portion (PA 14) of the site, which would accommodate the additional high school students that would be generated by the proposed development.
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-19
As discussed above, it is anticipated that the proposed high school site would accommodate 2,000 students. Provision of this school facility in the Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan would serve new students generated by the proposed development as well as students from adjacent neighborhoods. Payment of state mandated fees will help to offset the cost of this facility.
Mitigation Measures
5.12-c The Developer shall be required to pay the Development Impact Mitigation Fees, as determined to be necessary by the development agreement, City Community Development Department, Public Works Department and San Jacinto School District, to offset impacts on school facilities.
Requiring payment of the school facility mitigation fees would aid in acquiring the additional resources to provide adequate school facilities necessary to accommodate existing and future residents. Therefore, contribution of the mitigation fees by the developer would ensure that adequate mitigation is provided to reduce potential direct and cumulative school impacts to less than significant levels. Should the developer assist the City in facilitating the construction of the school site identified in the Specific Plan, the City may decide to waive or reduce some portion of the school mitigation fees typically required to an appropriate lesser amount in consideration of the partial mitigation provided by developer-assisted, on-site school facility construction.
Residual Impact/Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan includes development standards that would apply to all future build-out of the planning area which specifically includes development elements and/or policies and measures to ensure that adequate public facilities and services such as schools are provided in conjunction with build-out of the development. With implementation of the additional mitigation measure above, impacts to schools would be less than significant.
5.12.6 Wastewater Treatment
Existing Conditions
Wastewater treatment for the City of San Jacinto is provided by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) Hemet/San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Facility. The facility collects and treats municipal sewage and produces recycled water for reuse. According to the Eastern Municipal Water District's wastewater treatment website page for the Hemet/San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Facility the facility currently maintains a typical daily treatment flow of 7.8 million gallons a day (MGD) and a maximum raw sewage treatment capacity of 11
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-20
MGD. The facility is slated for an expansion to provide a maximum of 27 MGD treatment capacity to accommodate projected future sewage production from growth in the facility's service area (EMWD, http://www.emwd.org/news/Insights/insights_hemet-san_jacinto.pdf accessed May 5, 2009). All EMWD facilities are currently determined to be in compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board wastewater treatment requirements. Currently, there is an existing force main located within the Sanderson Avenue right-of-way along the east property boundary. The existing De Anza lift station located at the northeast corner of the project area conveys flows through the sewer main to the Hemet/San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Facility located directly south of the project site.
Significance Criteria
5. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
6. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects?
7. Would the project result in 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? Impacts
Wastewater treatment for the City of San Jacinto is provided by the EMWD Hemet/San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Facility. The facility collects and treats municipal sewage and produces recycled water for reuse, maintaining a typical daily treatment flow of 7.8 MGD and a raw sewage treatment capacity of 11 MGD. The facility is slated for an ultimate expansion of 27 MGD to accommodate projected future sewage production from growth in the facility's service area. All EMWD facilities are currently determined to be in compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board wastewater treatment requirements.
Wastewater production of the proposed project would be conveyed via on-site infrastructure improvements and the City's existing public sewer system facilities to the Hemet/San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Facility for treatment. The proposed development would include new on-site sewer infrastructure improvements including 12- to 30-inch sewer lines that would gravity flow via the proposed internal roadways to within a 30-inch trunk line in Ramona Boulevard and then continue to gravity flow toward the existing De Anza lift station, which would then travel through a force main to the Hemet/San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Facility for treatment (see Figure 5.12-2, Master Sewer Plan).
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-21
Based on an average sewage generation rate of 300 gallons per day per household, and 1,700 gallons per day per acre of commercial/mixed-use development, the proposed project's maximum of 1,329 residential units and 49 acres of commercial/mixed-use would generate 482,000 gallons per day of wastewater (based on factors from RBF Consulting, November 9, 2005). This wastewater would be treated by the Hemet/San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Facility. This assumes that the school site would be developed into single-family residential (the 313 dwelling units that would be built at the school site would generate more wastewater than a school and thus represents a worst case scenario). As described above, the Hemet/San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Facility currently treats up to 7.8 MGD and has a current capacity of 11 MGD and ultimate capacity of 27 MGD. The quantity of wastewater generated by the proposed project would not exceed the current sewage treatment capacity, assuming a worst-case scenario that no expansion of the facility takes place prior to project completion. Therefore, the proposed project's impacts related to availability of existing sewer treatment services would be less than significant.
The Specific Plan identifies the following conditions for development in the Specific Plan area:
• All water and sewer lines will be designed per the Eastern Municipal Water District's Water and Sewer System Planning and Design Criteria dated July 2, 2007, and September 1, 2006, respectively.
• The infrastructure system and phasing shall be designed and installed consistent with the City of San Jacinto Engineering Department requirements. • The Eastern Municipal Water District will manage the development of infrastructure for the project area.
• Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the San Jacinto Engineering Department and the Riverside County Health Department.
The quantity of wastewater generated by the proposed development is not expected to exceed the sewage treatment capacity and the proposed Specific Plan policies require that a written agreement with EMWD be executed which states that the provision of services shall be available prior to the recordation of any tract maps. The Specific Plan policies further require that new sewer facilities are developed consistent with EMWD's planning and design criteria, and in accordance with the City Engineering Department. Therefore, all necessary facility infrastructure will be appropriately designed and constructed to serve the proposed development. Impacts related to sewer services would be less than significant.
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-22
Mitigation Measures
None.
Residual Impact/Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan includes development standards that would apply to all future build-out of the planning area which specifically includes development elements and/or policies and measures to ensure that adequate public facilities and services such as wastewater are provided in conjunction with build-out of the development. Therefore, impacts to wastewater systems would be less than significant.
5.12.7 Storm Drain Facilities
Existing Conditions
Stormwater runoff generated in the Specific Plan area currently drains primarily via sheet flow in a northerly direction toward the San Jacinto River. Existing drainage features on or near the project site consist of an open channel adjacent to the east property boundary that runs along Sanderson Avenue that conveys runoff north toward the San Jacinto River, and a depressed portion of land located at the northwest section of the project area which receives drainage across the site.
Significance Criteria
8. Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Impacts
The project site generally drains in a northwesterly direction toward the San Jacinto River, primarily in a sheet flow pattern. The northerly portion of the project site is within the 100-year floodplain. The Drainage Plan provides 100-year flood protection for the project site for the interim and ultimate condition as described below.
Interim Condition
The interim condition assumes that surrounding areas remain undeveloped (such as in the existing condition), and the on-site development of the Villages of San Jacinto and corresponding infrastructure is independently functional. This includes the construction of two interim facilities and the reconstruction of an earthen roadway east of the De Anza Drive and
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-23
Sanderson Avenue intersection. These interim drainage facilities are required to control and convey the interim flow rates originating from the off-site area. Interim facilities include Culvert V, which will provide 100-year flood protection for Bridge Street; Culvert E, located north of the intersection of Sanderson Avenue and the Casa Loma Canal.
The Specific Plan identifies the following conditions for development of the Villages of San Jacinto:
• Drainage and flood control facilities and improvements shall be provided in accordance with City of San Jacinto and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC & WCD) requirements.
• Project drainage facilities shall be publicly maintained. The City of San Jacinto will maintain storm drain systems that are equal to or less than 36-inches in diameter and all roadway culverts. RCFC & WCD will maintain all open channels and subsurface storm drains greater than 36-inches in diameter.
• RCFC & WCD will maintain lines and grades for all open channels. The City of San Jacinto will be required to maintain all landscape features and appurtenances.
Additionally, the City will maintain turf reinforcement mats that will be used for stability of channel invert erosion.
• All projects proposing construction activities including: clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least five acres total land area, or activity which is part of a larger common plan of development of five acres or greater, shall obtain the appropriate NPDES construction permit and pay the appropriate fees. All development within the Specific Plan boundaries shall be subject to future requirements adopted by the City to implement the NPDES program. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to: covered storage of all outside storage facilities; vegetated swales; monitoring programs; etc.
Section 5.8, Water Quality and Hydrology, indicates that improvements to the stormwater collection system and installation of a new on-site drainage system would be necessary to provide adequate storm drainage within the Villages of San Jacinto (see Figure 5.8-2, On-Site Drainage Facilities). The Specific Plan incorporates policies regarding control of stormwater runoff to reduce the overall quantity of stormwater and the Plan includes several specified components to improve drainage conditions and to ensure that drainage facilitates are provided to adequately control runoff from the site.
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-24
Mitigation Measures
See Mitigation Measures in Section 5.8.5, Water Quality and Hydrology, for measures related to provision of adequate storm drainage facilities.
Residual Impact/Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan includes development standards that would apply to all future build-out of the planning areas which specifically includes development elements and/or policies and measures to ensure that adequate public facilities and services such as storm drainage are provided in conjunction with build-out of the development. With implementation of the mitigation measures in Section 5.8.5, Water Quality and Hydrology Mitigation Measures, impacts to stormwater drainage systems would be less than significant.
5.12.8 Domestic Water Supply
The following discussion is based in part on the previously referenced Water Supply Assessment Report (December 15, 2004), and a letter from EMWD confirming their previous conclusions (May 11, 2009).
Existing Conditions
Domestic water supply is provided to the City of San Jacinto by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) which provides domestic and agricultural water supply, wastewater collection and treatment service, and recycled water in a 555 square mile service area from Moreno Valley to Temecula, and from Hemet and San Jacinto to Good Hope and Mead Valley. The EMWD serves a population of approximately 675,000 in Western Riverside County and generally provides approximately 110 million gallons of water per day for domestic and agricultural supplies and for other water agencies in the area (Eastern Municipal Water District, http://www.emwd.org/news/Insights/Insights4-09.pdf, accessed May 5, 2009). Water resources used to sustain the existing agricultural operations is provided primarily as recycled water by the EMWD, which is supplemented by groundwater produced by three on-site wells for which there are no restrictions on private use. Currently, irrigation for the turf farm operation consists of a combination of 95% reclaimed water and 5% groundwater.
The City is aware that some time has passed since the project’s Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was adopted (December 15, 2004); therefore, the City has confirmed with EMWD that its WSA conclusions are still valid (letter dated May 11, 2009). The original WSA and confirmation letter are contained in Appendix K. The City has also taken into account other developments in water supply that may affect the project area and has provided this analysis below.
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-25
Delta Smelt: Kempthorne Case and New FWS Biological Opinion On May 25, 2007, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that the biological opinion prepared by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concerning the effects of long-term operations of the State Water Project (SWP) and the federal Central Valley Project (CVP) upon delta smelt was invalid under the federal Endangered Species Act. (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Kempthorne, et al., USDC Case No. 05-CV-1207- OWW.) On December 14, 2007, the court issued an Interim Remedial Order and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law requiring that the SWP and CVP operate according to certain specified criteria until a new biological opinion for the delta smelt was issued. Based on estimates prepared by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), MWD estimated that for the year 2008, it would be subject to reductions in SWP supplies of up to a 30% as a result of the Kempthorne order, depending on prevailing hydrologic conditions and migratory status of the delta smelt.
On December 15, 2008, the FWS issued a new B.O. regarding the effects of CVP and SWP operations on delta smelt. According to preliminary information published DWR, which operates the SWP, the new B.O. will continue reductions in SWP and CVP exports from the Delta that were in effect since December 2007 under the federal court order in Kempthorne. DWR has estimated that under average water year conditions, the “most likely” result of the new B.O. is a 1% increase in the amount of available SWP supplies in comparison to the Kempthorne restrictions, although a worst-case scenario could result in a 13% decrease in available supplies.
Under dry water year conditions, DWR states the “most likely” result of the new B.O. is the exact same type of potential restrictions as set forth in Kempthorne, although restrictions could possibly increase by 21% under a worst-case scenario. (See www.water.ca.gov/news/newsreleases/2008/121508swpimpacts.pdf.) As with the Kempthorne order, potential water supply restrictions under the new B.O. are dependent on various factors that cannot be predicted with a high degree of certainty, including hydrologic conditions, migratory and reproductive patterns of delta smelt, and other factors affecting delta smelt abundance in the Delta.
Due to a number of alleged scientific and other deficiencies in the new B.O., water agencies holding contracts to receive SWP supplies from DWR, among others, filed complaints in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of California challenging the B.O. (See, San Luis Delta-Mendota Water Authority et al. v. Salazar et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-407 (E.D. Cal., filed Mar. 3, 2009); State Water Contractors v. Salazar, et al., Case No. 1:09-CV-422 (E.D. Cal., filed Mar. 4, 2009); Coalition for a Sustainable Delta et al. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-480 (E.D. Cal., filed Mar. 12, 2009; amended complaint filed May 28, 2009); Metropolitan Water District v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Case No. 1:09-CV-631 (E.D. Cal., filed Apr. 8, 2009); and Stewart & Jasper Orchards et al. v. United
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-26
States Fish and Wildlife Service et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-892 (E.D. Cal., filed May 21, 2009)) These litigation matters challenging the validity of the new B.O. give rise to the additional possibility that SWP delivery reductions as set forth by the Kempthorne order could be put back in place pending final legal resolution of the new B.O. In light of these various factors, the degree to which SWP deliveries may be reduced under the new B.O. for delta smelt remains somewhat speculative at this time.
Salmon/Anadromous Species: Gutierrez Case and New NMFS Biological Opinion SWP and CVP operations have also been challenged in a separate litigation matter, entitled Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association / Institute for Fisheries Resources, et al. v.
Gutierrez, et al., (USDC Case No. 1:06-CV-00245-OWW). In October 2004, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a “no jeopardy” determination and biological opinion (B.O.) analyzing impacts to threatened winter and spring-run salmon and steelhead trout in connection with SWP and CVP operations in the Delta through the year 2030. As with the Kempthorne case above, the project/action evaluated in the NMFS B.O. included current and future Delta pumping operations under the Operations and Criteria Plan (OCAP). In August 2005, several environmental plaintiff groups filed suit in federal court against NMFS and the Secretary of Commerce challenging the validity of the B.O. Several public agencies that hold contracts to receive water from the CVP and SWP intervened in the action. The plaintiffs later filed an amended complaint and thereafter the case was stayed for a period of time while the parties attempted to negotiate a settlement of the issues. The stay was later lifted and, in May 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment to invalidate the B.O. without a trial. Similar to the situation discussed above in the Kempthorne case, NMFS and the Bureau of Reclamation decided, notwithstanding the outcome of the litigation, to reinitiate ESA Section 7 consultation regarding how the projects affect the protected anadromous species. Thus, the two agencies are now preparing the necessary documentation to produce a new B.O. A hearing on the summary judgment motions in the Gutierrez case was held on October 3, 2007, and on April 16, 2008, the Court issued its decision invalidating the NMFS B.O. for failing to comply with the federal ESA. As with Kempthorne, the Court did not vacate the B.O., meaning that CVP and SWP operations are authorized to continue pending the preparation of a new B.O. and any interim requirements the Court may impose. Proceedings were scheduled thereafter to determine whether interim restrictions such as those ordered in the Kempthorne case would be required pending the new B.O. On July 18, 2008, Judge Wanger issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which determined, among other things, that additional water supply restrictions beyond those required in Kempthorne (and now the new B.O.) are not required at this time. The Court again reached the same conclusion in a subsequent decision dated October 21, 2008.
On June 4, 2009, NMFS issued a new B.O. regarding the effects of CVP and SWP operations on protected salmon, steelhead, green sturgeon, and resident killer whales. According to draft
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-27
information published by DWR, NMFS has calculated that the B.O. has the potential to reduce combined CVP and SWP deliveries from the Delta by 5 to 7%, while DWR has initially estimated that average year reductions have the potential to range closer to 10%, in addition to restrictions imposed under the FWS B.O. for delta smelt. (See, http://www.water.ca.gov/news/newsreleases/2009/060409salmon.pdf.) As with the FWS B.O. for delta smelt and the Incidental Take Permit for longfin smelt, potential water supply restrictions under the NMFS B.O. are dependent on various factors that cannot be predicted with a high degree of certainty, including hydrologic conditions in the Delta region, migratory and reproductive patterns of protected anadromous fish, and other factors affecting the abundance of those species in the Delta. In June 2009, legal challenges were filed against the NMFS B.O. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California alleging, among other things, that the water supply restrictions set forth in the B.O. were established in violation of the federal Endangered Species, the federal Administrative Procedures Act, and other laws. (See, e.g., San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority, et al. v. Locke, et al., Case No. 1:09-CV01053-OWW-DLB; Stockton East Water District v. United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, et al., Case No. 1:09-CV-01090-OWW-DLB.) The abovementioned cases and other potential litigation that could be filed against the NMFS B.O. call into question whether the water supply restrictions in the B.O. can be imposed against the SWP. For these reasons, the degree to which SWP deliveries may be reduced under the new NMFS B.O. species remains speculative at this time.
Longfin Smelt: California Department of Fish and Game Incidental Take Permit Another factor having the potential to affect the availability and reliability of SWP supplies is the March 4, 2009, decision by the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) that listing the longfin smelt as a “threatened” species is warranted under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The longfin smelt is a small pelagic fish species, related to the delta smelt, whose habitat includes the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, among other areas along the West Coast.
Under CESA, a threatened species is a native species or subspecies that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future absent special protection and management efforts. CESA sets forth a general prohibition against the take of a threatened species except as otherwise authorized under CESA. One such authorization is provided by California Fish and Game Code section 2081, wherein the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) may authorize the incidental taking of a threatened species in connection with an otherwise lawful activity through the issuance of a permit. On February 29, 2009, DFG issued Incidental Take Permit No. 2081-2009-001-03 (Permit) to DWR as the owner and operator of the SWP. The Permit applies to the ongoing and long-term operation of the SWP’s facilities in the Delta, including Clifton Court Forebay, the John E. Skinner Fish Facility, the Harvey O. Banks Pumping Plant and the North Bay Aqueduct,
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-28
and authorizes DWR to incidentally take longfin smelt in connection with its operation of the SWP, provided the terms and conditions of the Permit are satisfied. The Permit imposes operating restrictions on the SWP facilities that are based in large part on the restrictions imposed on the SWP by the new B.O. issued by FWS for delta smelt (see above). As with the B.O. for delta smelt, potential water supply restrictions under the Permit are dependent on various factors that cannot be predicted with a high degree of certainty, including hydrologic conditions in the Delta region, migratory and reproductive patterns of longfin smelt, and other factors affecting longfin smelt abundance in the Delta. DWR has not indicated whether any particular reductions in SWP exports are likely to result from the Permit. Due to a number of alleged scientific and other deficiencies in the Permit, an organization of water agencies holding contracts to receive SWP supplies from DWR has filed a complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court challenging the Permit. (See, State Water Contractors v. California Dept. of Fish and Game, et al., Sac. Sup. Ct. Case No. 34-2009-80000203.) That case has brought DFG’s ability to enforce the Permit into question. In light of the foregoing factors, potential reductions in SWP supplies resulting from DFG’s Incidental Take Permit for longfin smelt remain speculative at this time.
SWP Supply Reliability: DWR 2007 SWP Delivery Reliability Report While various factors can affect the availability and reliability of imported water supplies from the State Water Project (SWP), the likelihood of those supplies being available to MWD over the short, intermediate and long-term periods during normal, single-dry and multiple-dry year hydrologic cycles have been extensively analyzed and addressed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). In fact, commencing in 2003 and every two years thereafter, DWR prepares a SWP Delivery Reliability Report that is intended to assist local agencies, cities and counties in conducting water supply analyses to demonstrate whether their water supplies are sufficient for development projects subject to the CEQA review process. DWR’s most recent 2007 Final SWP Delivery Reliability Report (DWR Reliability Report) was published in August 2008.
According to the DWR Reliability Report, the long-term average delivery of contractual amounts of SWP Table A supply is expected to range from 63% under current (2007) conditions to between 66 and 69% under future (2027) conditions. (DWR Reliability Report, pp. 44-45, 51-52, 55-56, 78.) Within that long-term average, SWP Table A deliveries can range from 6% (single dry year) to 90% of contractual amounts under current conditions (DWR Reliability Report, p. 44), and from 6 to 7% (single dry year) to 100% of contractual amounts under future conditions. (DWR reliability Report, pp. 51, 55-56.) The analyses provided in the DWR Reliability Report are based upon 82 years of historical records for rainfall and runoff that have been adjusted to reflect the current and future levels of development in the sources areas by analyzing land use patterns and projecting future land and water uses. (DWR Reliability Report, p. 20.) Of key
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-29
importance, the studies utilized in the DWR Reliability Report for current through future conditions (20-year projection) assume and account for current facility and institutional limitations facing the SWP, such as: water quality issues; fishery protections; export curtailments and other requirements under State Board Water Rights Decision 1641; the Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan (VAMP) as described in the 2004 Operations Criteria and Plan (OCAP); recent court-ordered Delta flow targets in Old and Middle Rivers to protect listed fish species; and potential effects of Delta levee failures and other seismic or flood events. (See, e.g., DWR Reliability Report, pp. 8, 16, 18-21, 27, 30, 32, 35, 37-39, Appendices A and B.) In addition, DWR’s long-term SWP delivery reliability analyses incorporate assumptions to account for potential supply shortfalls related to global climate change factors. (Ibid.) The DWR Reliability Report accounts for potential affects of future climate change on SWP deliveries through the year 2050 by examining four climate change scenarios: weak temperature warming and weak precipitation increase in California under model PCM; modest warming and modest drying under model PCM; modest warming and modest drying under model GFDL v. 2.0; and weak temperature warming and weak precipitation increase in California under model GFDL v.
2.0. (See DWR Reliability Report, pp. 1, 17, 27, 37-39, 43, Appendices A and B.) Thus, the effects of these institutional, administrative and court-ordered reductions in SWP exports, as well as the potential effects of long-term global climate change, have been extensively analyzed and accounted for in the supply forecasts set forth by DWR’s 2007 Final SWP Delivery Reliability Report.
The 29 SWP Contractors and water agencies throughout California utilize the DWR Reliability Report in their water supply analyses, planning and reporting obligations. Indeed, both MWD’s Regional UWMP and EMWD’s 2005 UWMP acknowledge that SWP entitlements differ from actual SWP deliveries made available to SWP Contractors. (See, MWD Regional UWMP, pp.
III-41 to III-50; EMWD 2005 UWMP, pp. 32-35.) SWP Contractors, including MWD, generally anticipate that the variability of SWP supplies may increase in the future as the Contractors request their maximum Table A amounts and as system-wide issues such as Delta exports are resolved. At the same time, however, SWP Contractors such as MWD who utilize groundwater basins to recharge portions of their SWP deliveries, as well as other exchange and transfer arrangements, can plan to receive long-term average deliveries of 66 to 69% of their SWP Table A allotments. (2007 DWR Reliability Report, pp. 39-40.) As indicated above, MWD has incorporated DWR’s SWP reliability studies and analyzed several other key factors in developing its conservative estimate of long-term SWP deliveries. (MWD Regional UWMP, pp.
III-41 to III-50.)
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-30
Drought Conditions: Regional Water Supply Planning, Statewide Drought Declarations, and Water Agency Responses
In its role as the supplemental water supplier to Southern California, MWD faces ongoing challenges in meeting the region’s need for reliable, high-quality water supplies. (MWD Regional UWMP, p. II-1.) Increased environmental regulations and competition for water from outside the region have resulted in changes in delivery patterns and timing of availability of imported water supplies. (Id.) Because of competing needs and uses associated with these resources, and because of concerns related to regional water operations, MWD has undertaken a number of planning initiatives over the past ten years. MWD’s Regional UWMP discusses and analyzes those efforts. Particularly important to MWD’s mission is its coordinated approach to regional planning through the Integrated Resources Plan (IRP). The outcome of the IRP process was a “Preferred Resource Mix” which would ensure water supply reliability to MWD and its member agencies reliability. As part of the IRP, MWD has developed an overall reliability analysis in its computer-based model referred to as the IRPSIM, which evaluates the reliability of its water supplies, including supplies available from the SWP, the Colorado River, water transfers and exchanges, and other sources. (See, MWD Regional UWMP, pp. II-1 to II-15.) The IRPSIM is based on 70 years of historical hydrology (from 1922 to 1991) to allow it to estimate water surplus and shortage over a 20-year period and beyond. The model has allowed MWD to analyze the reliability of deliveries to its member agencies during worst-case single year and multiple year drought events. The results of MWD’s modeling indicate that it can maintain reliable supplies to meet all member agencies’ full-service demands without interruption throughout the 2005 to 2030 time period, including under drought conditions. (MWD Regional UWMP, pp. II-2/3, 11, 15.) Detailed analyses regarding MWD’s supply projections are also set forth in Appendix A of MWD’s Regional UWMP. As detailed in those analyses, MWD’s overall supply and delivery reliability is based not just on Colorado River and SWP supplies, but also on conservation programs, groundwater storage programs, and water transfer and exchange programs.
A key component of MWD’s water supply strategy is its Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan (WSDM). The purpose of the WSDM is to provide policy guidance and help manage regional water supplies to achieve the reliability goals of the IRP, where MWD seeks to maximize management of wet year supplies and minimize adverse impacts of water shortages to retail customers. Supporting principles of the WSDM include the encouragement of efficient water use and economical local resource programs, coordinated operations with member agencies to make as much surplus water as possible available for use in dry years, and the pursuit of innovative transfer and banking programs to secure more imported water for use in dry years.
The WSDM contains the following considerations that would go into any equitable allocation of imported water: impact on retail customers and regional economy; investments in local
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-31
resources, including recycling and conservation; population growth; changes and/or losses in local supplies; participation in MWD’s non-firm, interruptible programs; and investment in MWD facilities. The WSDM distinguishes between surpluses, shortages, severe shortages, and extreme shortages. Within the WSDM, each year MWD evaluates the level of supplies available and existing levels of water in storage to determine the appropriate management stage for that year. Each stage is associated with specific resource management actions designed to avoid extreme shortage scenarios to the maximum extent possible and minimize adverse impacts to retail customers if an extreme shortage occurs. The sequencing outlined in the WSDM reflects anticipated responses based on detailed modeling of MWD’s existing and expected water supply resource mix. When MWD must make net withdrawals from storage to meet demands, it is considered to be in a shortage condition. Under most stages of shortage, MWD is still able to meet all end-use demands for water. For more severe shortage conditions, the WSDM shows that MWD will meet demands by withdrawing water from storage. Under worsening shortage conditions, MWD may undertake additional shortage management steps, including issuing public calls for extraordinary conservation, including the curtailment of Interim Agricultural Water Program deliveries in accordance with their discounted rates, exercising water transfer options, or open market water purchases. In an extreme shortage scenario, MWD may be required to implement a plan to allocate available supply fairly and efficiently among its full-service customers, which allocations are to be based on and enforced through rate surcharges where member agencies will be required to pay more for deliveries exceeding their respective allotments. (MWD RUWMP, pp. II-15/16.) The benefits of aggressive water conservation and public education efforts are also detailed in MWD’s RUWMP. (See MWD 2005 RUWMP, pp.
III-5 through III-21.)
On February 12, 2008, MWD adopted a Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP) as a component of its WSDM. As indicated above, the WSDM guides MWD’s supply actions under both wet and dry conditions for achieving overall water supply reliability to its member agencies, including EMWD. The WSDM outlines various water supply conditions and corresponding actions MWD may undertake in response to serious water shortages. Under Condition 1, MWD issues a Water Supply Watch and encourages local agencies to implement voluntary dry-year conservation measures and utilize regional storage reserves. Under Condition 2, MWD issues a Water Supply Alert and calls for cities, counties, its member agencies and all other retail water providers to implement extraordinary conservation through drought ordinances and other measures to mitigate the use of storage reserves. Under Condition 3, MWD may implement its WSAP, which allocates available water supplies among member agencies based on factors such as impacts on retail customers, population and growth of particular member agencies, the availability of recycled water and other local supplies, conservation efforts, participation in MWD’s interruptible water supply programs, and investment in MWD’s facilities.
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-32
On June 4, 2008, the Governor of California proclaimed a statewide drought due to record-low rainfall in spring 2008 and court-ordered restrictions on Delta exports as discussed above. (Executive Order S-06-08.) Soon thereafter, the Governor proclaimed a state of drought emergency to exist within the Counties of Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Kern. (Proclamation dated June 12, 2008.) In response, MWD determined it was not necessary to implement its Water Supply Allocation Plan but, rather, on June 10, 2008 declared a Condition 2 water scenario and issued a Water Supply Alert, calling on local agencies and residents to take immediate steps for conserving water. On February 27, 2009, the Governor declared a statewide water supply emergency to combat California’s third consecutive year of drought. (Proclamation dated February 27, 2009.) Relatively soon thereafter, on April 14, 2009, MWD’s Board of Directors implemented its WSAP at a Regional Shortage Level 2 with the goal of reducing regional demand for wholesale water deliveries by 10%. This marks the first time MWD has implemented the WSAP since it was approved in February 2008 after a seven-month development process. The WSAP will go into effect on July 1, 2009, and has the potential to increase the cost of MWD water supplies to particular member agencies.
The WSAP outlines a three step process for determining each member agency’s “allocation year” supply during a period of shortage. First, base period local supplies, wholesale demands and retail demands are calculated by averaging data compiled during a three-year base period which MWD established as 2004 through 2006. Base period local supplies are the average annual supplies generated by groundwater production, groundwater recovery, Los Angeles Aqueduct supply (for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power), surface water production, and other imported supplies, but do not include non-potable recycled water production. Under the Plan, base period wholesale demand includes full-service water deliveries, seawater barrier, seasonal shift, and surface storage operating agreement demands. The base period retail demand is calculated by adding base period local supplies and wholesale demand.
Base period demand figures are then used to estimate allocation year retail demands, local supplies and, ultimately, wholesale demands. Notably, total retail demands for the allocation period are calculated by adjusting the base period retail demands for growth. The growth adjustment is calculated using the estimated actual annual rate of population growth at the county level, as determined by the California Department of Finance. Similarly, allocation year local supplies are estimated using the base year local supplies, adding average in-lieu deliveries received during the base period and planned or scheduled increases in supply over the base year, and subtracting losses of local supply due to conditions such as hydrology or water quality.
Allocation year wholesale demand, which serves as the basis of a member agency’s ultimate allocation, is then calculated by subtracting allocation year local supplies from retail demands.
Extraordinary increases in production over the base year, defined as increases that occur solely due to the circumstances in that year such as purchasing water transfers or overproducing
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-33
groundwater yield, are not included in the allocation year local supplies during a Regional Shortage Level 1 or 2 and, therefore, do not reduce allocation year wholesale demand. In years where MWD declares a Regional Shortage Level 3 or above, only a fraction of an agency’s extraordinary increase in production will be included in the allocation year local supplies which, in turn, will influence the agency’s allocation year wholesale demand. In the final step, the allocation year wholesale demand is converted into a water supply allocation. Actual allocations will be adjusted with credits based upon an agency’s past conservation efforts and relative dependence upon MWD water deliveries.
Allocations under the WSAP ultimately are achieved through a penalty rate structure enforced by MWD. If a member agency exceeds its allocation, penalty rates and charges will apply for water deliveries to the agency in excess of the allocation. MWD will track agency water use on a monthly basis and any applicable penalties are to be assessed at the end of an allocation year.
Thus, member agencies are not subject to penalties on the basis of a high demand month but, rather, only if their total usage between July 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010, exceeds their total annual allocation. Penalties will be assessed through an ascending block structure that imposes a lower penalty for minor overuse and a higher penalty for higher exceedance of an agency’s water supply allocation. The Plan provides for an allocation appeals process which may be used to address miscalculated base period supplies, unforeseen loss or gain in local supply, population growth rates, and other issues affecting an agency’s allocation. As indicated above, MWD has implemented its WSAP at a Regional Shortage Level 2 with the goal of reducing wholesale demands within its service area, maintaining storage reserves and decreasing the risk of additional supply allocations in the future.
EMWD has taken numerous steps to prepare itself and its customers for the potential scenario where MWD may implement its WSAP. Through these steps, EMWD has been able to achieve extraordinary water conservation and demand management on an agency-wide basis such that MWD’s recent allocation is not expected to result in an actual reduction in MWD water deliveries to EMWD. Rather, EMWD has sought to markedly change the manner in which water is used within its territory as a means of controlling the amount of additional imported supply it may need from MWD during the allocation period. The key components of EMWD’s demand management strategy are discussed below.
EMWD recently adopted Ordinance No. 72.24 (February 4, 2009) establishing aggressive new requirements to achieve water use efficiency within its service territory. Indeed, Ordinance No.
72.24 states that the following water efficiency requirements shall apply to all existing and future customers: (a) refrain from hosing down driveways and other hard surfaces, except for health or sanitary reasons and then only by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off devise or a low-volume, high-pressure cleaning machine equipped to recycle any water used; (b) repair faucets, toilets, pipes and other
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-34
potential sources of water leaks; (c) irrigate landscape only between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., although this provision does not apply when (i) manually watering during the establishment period of a new landscape, (ii) temperatures are predicted to fall below freezing, or (iii) for very short periods of time for the express purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system; (d) refrain from watering or irrigating of any lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water using a landscape irrigation system or watering device that is not continuously attended unless it is limited to no more than fifteen minutes watering per day per station, although this time limitation can be extended for (i) landscape irrigation systems that exclusively use very low flow drip irrigation systems when no emitter produces more than two gallons of water per hour, or (ii) whether based controllers or stream rotor sprinklers that meet a 70% efficiency, provided, however, that over-watering is not permitted in any case; (e) adjust and operate all landscape irrigation systems in a manner which will maximize irrigation efficiency and avoid over watering or watering of hardscape and the resulting runoff; (f) refrain from watering or irrigating any lawn, landscape or other vegetated area that causes or allows excessive water flow or runoff onto an adjoining sidewalk, driveway, street, alley, gutter or ditch; (g) do not use decorative fountains unless they are equipped with a recycling system; (h) do not allow water to run while washing vehicles, instead use a bucket or similar container and/or a handheld hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off device to avoid run off into gutters, streets or alleys; (i) when installing new landscaping, plant low-water demand trees and plants and do not incorporate nonfunctional turf areas; and (j) refrain from water during rain. (EMWD Ordinance No.
72.24(1)(a)-(j).)
Another notable feature of EMWD’s Ordinance No. 72.24 is its enforcement of the agency’s tiered rate structure based on water budgets that apply to single-family, multi-family and landscape accounts that receive water from EMWD’s domestic water system. Under Ordinance
72.24, four tiers are used to encourage efficient water use by customer groups and discourage the wasteful types of water uses identified above in Section 1 of the Ordinance. EMWD’s Tier 1 Rate applies to an indoor water budget that is based on the gallons of water needed per person, per day. The Tier 2 Rate applies to an outdoor water budget that is based on square footage of landscape, actually daily ET, and a conservation factors, where (i) the default conservation factor for meters installed prior to September 1, 2008, is 1.0; (ii) the default conservation factor for meters installed after September 1, 2008, is 0.80 unless a lower ET adjustment factor is specified in the current State of California Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance or the County of Riverside Water Efficient Landscape Requirements Ordinance; and (iii) the conservation factor can be adjusted up to 1.25 for functional areas at the discretion of EMWD. The Tier 3 Rate is applied to excessive water use that is measured as a percentage of Tier 1 and Tier 2 budgets, where a significantly higher rate can be charged for such excessive use. The Tier 4 Rate is applied to wasteful water use that exceed the Tier 3 limits. This rate is extraordinarily higher to discourage waste. (EMWD Ordinance 72.24(2)(a)-(d).) These tiered rates are more specifically
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-35
set forth in EMWD Resolution 3352. Ordinance 72.24 also establishes a strict penalty structure for water runoff. (EMWD Ordinance 72.24(3)(a)-(b).)
In a press release dated April 9, 2009, EMWD announced that its first tiered-rate bills had been distributed. In February and March, shadow bills accompanied regular bills to give customers an idea how their bills would have fared under the tiered structure. With EMWD’s traditional rate structure, water rates were set according to a single commodity rate, regardless of the volume used. Under the new structure, each of EMWD’s residential customers were provided with water budgets designed to give them the water they need for both indoor and outdoor uses. Indoor water budgets are based on the number of residents in the household, each using 60 gallons per day. The default single family residential household budget is based on three people, and multifamily residential is two. This comprises Tier 1. Outdoor water budgets are set according to the property’s estimated irrigated area, based on County parcel data (lot size) and GIS information (house footprint, garage/carport area and driveway). The default for irrigated areas is generally set at 3,000 square feet, or up to 6,000 square feet for large landscapes. The outdoor portion comprises Tier 2. Together, the indoor and outdoor tiers form a household’s water budget. Unlike other one-size-fits-all tiered rate structures, EMWD’s includes allowances for larger households and for weather so greater outdoor irrigation is included in the budget during the summer. As stated in the press release, the purpose of the tiered rate structure is not to force people to go without water, but to eliminate excessive or wasteful use. The shadow bills also confirmed that 80% of EMWD’s customers kept within their first two tiers, their water budgets.
If tiered rates had been in effect at that time, those customers would have paid 18% less than their fixed commodity rates. Increased budgets can be approved for changes in the number of people in a household, larger landscaping areas, increased needs for large animals, child care or for medical requirements. Justification can also be made for allowing swimming pools to be refilled once every five years.
As an addition water saving measure, Ordinance No. 72.24 establishes stringent requirements for new landscape meters. First, EMWD requires a separate dedicated meter for landscape areas greater than or equal to 3,000 square feet. Second, the Ordinance provides that the efficient use of water should be considered in the design of any new landscape area, where EMWD will calculate an Annual Maximum Allowable Water Budget (AMAWB) for customers that request a new account using the following limitations: (i) the AMAWB will be calculated using the area’s reference ET, the size of the landscaped area, and a conservation factor; (ii) for non-functional areas (landscape areas primarily used for aesthetic purposes, such as front yards, median strips, and parkways), a conservation factor of 0.80 will be used unless a lower factor for adjusting ET is specified in the current State of California Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance or the County of Riverside Water Efficient Landscape Requirements Ordinance; (iii) for functional areas (landscape areas that serve as a surface for high traffic activities, such as playing a sport or
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-36
group gatherings), a conservation factor of 1.25 will be used at the discretion of EMWD; (iv) reference ET is given in inches per year, may vary by areas across EMWD, and will be established by EMWD; and (v) the AMAWB will be used to estimate outdoor water used, where the actual outdoor water budget applied to the account will be based on actual daily ET. Third, prior to the issuance of a landscape meter, the new customer shall calculate a water budget for each landscaped area, which budget cannot exceed the AMAWB limits calculated by EMWD. (EMWD Ordinance 72.24(4)(a)-(c).)
In addition to the foregoing, EMWD has also adopted a Water Shortage Contingency Plan (“WSCP”) as part of its UWMP to address circumstances of drought, supply reductions, failure of water distribution systems or other emergency situations. (See, EMWD 2005 UWMP, Appendix D.) In fact, on March 5, 2009, EMWD adopted Ordinance No. 117.2 to amend its WSCP and more aggressively regulate the use of non-essential potable water during shortage and extreme shortage level conditions. Ordinance No. 117.2 expressly provides that its purposes is to help conserve available water supplies, protect the integrity of water supply infrastructure, and to help implement EMWD’s contingency plan for times of drought and water supply shortages. (EMWD Ordinance 117.2, Section I.) Another stated purpose of the Ordinance is to achieve coordination and implementation of MWD’s WSAP (see discussion above). (Id., Section III.) The water shortage contingency measures of Ordinance 117.2 apply to all persons, customers and properties within EMWD that utilize potable water and are implemented depending on the declared water supply condition as follows: Stage 1 exists when water deficiencies are predicted to or actually range between 0 and less than 5% of available supply and/or capacity; Stage 2 exists when water deficiencies are predicted to or actually range from 5% up to 10% of available supply and/or capacity; Stage 3 exists when water deficiencies are predicted to or actually range from 10% up to 15% of available supply and/or capacity; Stage 4 exists when water deficiencies are predicted to or actually range from 15 to 25% of available supply and/or capacity and storage is not recovering; Stage 5 exists when water deficiencies are predicted to or actually range from 25 to 35% of available supply and/or capacity and storage is not recovering; Stage 6 exists when water deficiencies are predicted to or actually range from 35 to 50% of available supply and/or capacity and storage is not recovering; Stage 7 exists when water deficiencies are predicted to or actually exceed 50% of available supply and/or capacity and storage is not recovering. (EMWD Ordinance 117.2, Section VII.)
Under any such stage, EMWD may employ any or all of the following public notification procedures: (a) notify the general public and influential local decision-makers about existing water supply conditions, actions to be taken, what customer involvement is intended to achieve, and how actions are to be implemented; (b) the public at large will be informed of the existing water supply conditions and what responses are needed, information that can be disseminated through billing inserts, special mailings, telephone contact, email, roadway signage, water
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-37
conservation booths, speaker engagements, community association meetings, newsletters, and other public education programming; (c) all available forms of media should be employed, including public service announcements on radio and television, as well as press coverage in local newspapers; and (d) posting all pertinent information on EMWD’s website.
During a Stage 1 shortage, residential and potable landscape customers, as well as commercial, industrial and institutional (“CII”) users, are encouraged to achieve a voluntary 10% reduction in water use by implementing the above mentioned requirements of EMWD’s Water Use Efficiency Ordinance (Ordinance 72.24). A voluntary 5% reduction in water use is imposed on agricultural use. During Stage 2 conditions, all water users are required on a mandatory basis to comply with Ordinance 72.24 water saving measures to avoid the assessment of penalties. A mandatory 5% reduction in water use is imposed on agricultural use.
During Stage 3 conditions, household, potable landscape, and CII customers are required to achieve a 25% reduction in outdoor use and elimination of wasteful water use. In addition, the following restrictions apply: (1) watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated areas with sprinklers are subject to (i) watering only three days per week from June through August, (ii) two days per week in September, October and March through May, and (iii) one day per week November through February; (2) all leaks, breaks or other malfunctions in the water user’s plumbing or distribution system must be repaired within 72 hours; (3) refrain from filling or re-filling of ornamental lakes or ponds; (4) refrain from using potable water to wash or clean a vehicle, including but not limited to, any automobile, truck, van, bus, motorcycle, boat or trailer, whether motorized or not; and (5) maintain existing water levels on swimming pools or outdoor spas. Agricultural customers are required to achieve a 10% reduction in water use.
During Stage 4 conditions, household, potable landscape, and CII customers are required to achieve a 50% reduction in outdoor water use and eliminate wasteful water use. In addition to the Stage 3 requirements set forth above, further restrictions can be used to avoid water use penalties, including: (1) watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated areas with sprinklers are subject to (i) watering only two days per week from June through August and (ii) one day per week from September through May. Agricultural customers are required to achieve a 15% reduction in water use. During Stage 5 conditions, all customers are required to achieve a 50% reduction in outdoor water use in addition to Stage 4 restrictions, and residential and potable landscape customers must eliminate water use in excess of 15% above their total indoor and outdoor water budgets. Agricultural customers are required to achieve a 25% reduction in water use. During Stage 6 conditions, all customers are required to achieve a 50% reduction in outdoor water use in addition to Stage 4 restrictions, and residential and potable landscape customers must eliminate water use in excess of their total indoor and outdoor water budgets.
Agricultural customers are required to achieve a 35% reduction in water use. During Stage 7 conditions, residential and potable landscape customers are required to eliminate outdoor water
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-38
use except for purposes of health and safety and avoid exceeding indoor water budgets. CII customers are required to eliminate outdoor water use except for purposes of health and safety.
Agricultural customers are required to achieve a 50% reduction in water use. (EMWD Ordinance 117.2, Sections IX–XI.)
As indicated by Ordinance No. 117.2, EMWD’s implementation of water budgets and tier rate structures is intended to avoid the need for actually rationing community water supplies and preserve some latitude of choice with respect to how much potable water individual customers will use and how much customers are willing to pay for that water. (EMWD Ordinance 117.2, Section XII.) EMWD’s approach and response to MWD’s WSAP seeks to change the manner in which water is used within the agency, but it does not seek to physically curtail existing water deliveries or discourage new development. Recently, EMWD was declared to be in a Stage 1 water shortage condition where, as indicated above, all residential, potable landscape, and CII customers were encouraged to achieve a voluntary 10% reduction in water use by implementing the above mentioned requirements of EMWD’s Water Use Efficiency Ordinance (Ordinance
72.24). On June 17, 2009, EMWD adopted Resolution No. 4918 to approve and authorize the declaration of Stage 2 conditions. The discussion above shows that during Stage 2 conditions, all water users are required on a mandatory basis to comply with Ordinance 72.24 water saving measures to avoid the assessment of penalties for wasteful uses of water.
Significance Criteria
9. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Impacts
As previously indicated, EMWD provides an average of approximately 110 million gallons per day to consumers and other water agencies. Approximately 80% of the EMWD potable water supply consists of imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), with additional water supply obtained from local groundwater basins and recycled water produced by five regional water reclamation facilities. Water supply for the City and surrounding region is predominantly obtained through MWD from the State Water Project which conveys most water resources from Northern California and is supplemented by water delivered via the Colorado River Aqueduct. Additionally, the EMWD has developed a 3,000 acre feet per year seasonal storage demonstration program in which untreated State Water Project water is purchased from MWD during years of surplus which is then used to recharge local groundwater basins later to be used in-lieu of imported water. The seasonal storage program results in economic and resource management benefits for both the EMWD and MWD.
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-39
As a member agency that receives 80% of its water supply from MWD, the EMWD relies on MWD's ability to provide adequate water supply to meet existing and future demands to asses EMWD's ability to meet the demands of its specific service area. The Water Supply Assessment Report prepared by EMWD for the proposed Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan, dated December 15, 2004, indicates that in March 2003 MWD prepared a Report on MWD's Water Supplies which finds that with existing and planned water supplies MWD will be able to provide 100% of its member agencies' project demand through the year 2030, including during periods of repeated drought conditions. In addition to the findings for adequate water supply through 2030 of MWD's Report on MWD's Water Supplies, EMWD's Water Supply Assessment Report relies on additional findings of 100% water supply reliability through 2025 provided in MWD's Update to the Integrated Resources Plan, dated July 13, 2004, which considers various changed conditions of Southern California including projections of demographic and economic information obtained from regional planning agencies, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) prepared and adopted an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) pursuant to the requirements of the California Urban Water Management Planning Act. The most recent UWMP was approved by the EMWD Board of Directors on December 21, 2005. The UWMP describes how EMWD will address urban water demands and the efficient use of urban water supplies for a 5-year period and includes a discussion of the District's existing and planned water demand management measures, and the methods by which proposed measures will be implemented during the plan period. The Water Supply Assessment Report prepared by EMWD for the proposed development evaluates the estimated project water demand in relation to anticipated date of full build-out of the development and whether the anticipated demand will remain within the limits of the UWMP for the District.
EMWD's water supply assessment for the proposed Villages of San Jacinto initially assumed a maximum residential build out of 2,022 units. The assessment, therefore, provides a conservative estimate of projected water demand for the proposed residential use that would not exceed 1,016 units (or 1,329 units which includes 313 units should the school site be developed with residential uses). Therefore, the projected water demand is a worst-case estimate that would occur. According to the Water Supply Assessment Report, the proposed development at full build-out of the Villages of San Jacinto would result in an average projected water demand of 1,620 acre-feet/year. The assessment assumes a 4-year build out period with an initial water demand of 405 acre-feet per year in 2007, and the total projected water demand of 1,620 acrefeet/year occurring in 2011. The Water Supply Assessment Report indicates that the total projected water demand for the proposed development would remain within the limits of the projected demand of the District's current UWMP.
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-40
The Water Supply Assessment Report further indicates that, because EMWD is depending on MWD to supply water to meet future demand, and MWD has projected growth in its service area using anticipated growth information provided by SCAG, EMWD has concluded that it will be able to meet the projected water demand of the proposed development as well as existing and future uses beyond 2025. In addition, EMWD has concluded that it will be able to meet future water demand for the next 20 years in the event of drought given that MWD does not place restrictions on imported water resources on member agencies, and given that MWD has found that, based on water demand determined by regional growth projections, it would be able to meet all member agencies' projected supplemental demand with existing and planned water supplies through 2030 even with the occurrence of repeat drought conditions. A letter from EMWD dated May 11, 2009, confirms their previous conclusions in the December 15, 2004, Water Supply Assessment Report. Therefore, potential impacts associated water supply insufficiencies are considered less than significant.
The existing City water facilities and infrastructure that would serve the Villages of San Jacinto include a 12-inch water line that occurs within the Sanderson Avenue right-of-way just south of the project site. Extension of a 16-inch water line along the Sanderson right-of-way to Ramona Boulevard is currently underway. These existing facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the maximum level of development permitted under the Specific Plan to the point of connection/s that would be required to distribute water throughout the Specific Plan area. A new water distribution system would connect to the Sanderson Avenue line via 12-inch pipelines and would distribute potable water throughout the development area primarily via 8-inch lines within the proposed internal street network (see Figure 5.12-3, Master Water Plan).
The Specific Plan identifies the following conditions for development in the Villages of San Jacinto:
• All water and sewer lines will be designed per the Eastern Municipal Water District's Water and Sewer System Planning and Design Criteria dated July 2, 2007, and September 1, 2006, respectively.
• The infrastructure system and phasing shall be designed and installed consistent with the City of San Jacinto Engineering Department requirements. • The Eastern Municipal Water District will manage the development of infrastructure for the project area.
• Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the San Jacinto Engineering Department and the Riverside County Health Department.
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-41
Based on a worst case scenario assuming the proposed high school is built and a total of 1,016 homes are built (the school would result in higher water consumption than the 313 dwelling units that would replace the school), the total projected water demand is 853,640 gallons per day (gpd) for the proposed development (based on factors from RBF Consulting, November 9, 2005). This demand is expected to remain within the limits of the District's projected regional demand as outlined in the December 15, 2004, Water Supply Assessment for the project and affirmed by the May 11, 2009, letter from EMWD. The proposed Specific Plan policies require that a written agreement with EMWD be executed which states that the provision of services shall be available prior to the recordation of any tract maps. The Specific Plan policies further require that new water facility infrastructure be developed in accordance with the City Engineering Department and Riverside County Health Department, and development would be manage by EMWD.
Therefore, all necessary infrastructure would be appropriately designed and constructed to serve the proposed development. Therefore, impacts related to water services would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Residual Impact/Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan includes development standards that would apply to all future build-out of the planning area which specifically includes development elements and/or policies and measures to ensure that adequate public facilities and services such as domestic water supply are provided in conjunction with build-out of the development.
Therefore, impacts to domestic water supply systems and supplies would be less than significant.
5.12.9 Solid Waste and Recycling
Existing Conditions
CR&R Stanton Division provides solid waste and recycling management services for the City of San Jacinto. Solid waste disposal for the City of San Jacinto is directed to the Lamb Canyon Landfill which is owned and operated by the Riverside County Waste Management Department (RCWMD). The Landfill also services the Cities of Beaumont, Banning and Hemet, and the unincorporated areas of Pine Cove, Idyllwild, Cherry Valley, Cabazon, Homeland, Romoland and Winchester.
The Lamb Canyon Landfill is a Class III solid waste disposal site consisting of 1,088 acres of total landfill permit area. In December 2003, the California Integrated Waste Management Board approved a request by RCWMD for a Revised Full Solid Waste Facilities Permit and adopted a
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-42
Mitigated Negative Declaration to permit an increase in the overall capacity of the fill from 23,601,595 cubic yards to 34,292,000 cubic yards to accommodate the fill's projected design capacity for year 2023. In addition, the revised permit allowed for an increase in the amount of daily received waste from 1,900 tons per day to 3,000 tons per day to accommodate an anticipated five-year growth period of the service area (California Integrated Waste Management Board Resolution 2003-504, December 16–17, 2003).
The City is mandated by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) to divert 50% of its waste stream away from landfills through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities (AB939). Information obtained on the CIWMB website, indicates that the City of San Jacinto met the waste diversion standard with a 51% diversion rate as of the most recent available reporting year of 2006 (CIWMB, http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov, accessed on May 6, 2009).
Significance Criteria
10. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
11. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste?
Impacts
Anticipated uses in the Villages of San Jacinto are typical of urban areas, and would not violate any federal, state, or local statutes or regulations related to solid waste.
As discussed previously, the Lamb Canyon Landfill, which is regulated by the CIWMB, approved a request by the RCWMD to permit an increase in the overall capacity of the fill from 23,601,595 cubic yards to 34,292,000 cubic yards to accommodate the fill's projected necessary design capacity to adequately serve residents of Riverside County through year 2023. The CIWMB also permitted an increase in the amount of daily received waste from 1,900 tons per day to 3,000 tons per day to accommodate an anticipated five-year growth period of the service area (California Integrated Waste Management Board Resolution 2003-504, December 16–17, 2003).
According to personnel of RCWMD, the department does not consider projected population and development growth rates of the service area to determine future waste generation. The fill capacity needed to meet future needs of the service area is due to various factors that affect the amount of solid waste that is actually received at the facility such as required waste diversion programs (AB 939) and construction/demolition materials associated with new development.
Likewise, the County does not have a particular threshold to define a significant project-specific
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-43
impact to the solid waste system. The RCWMD, as an alternative, determines the landfill's estimated future capacity needs based on historical data that has documented an average 4% increase rate in waste disposal received by the fill (Ma, personal communication, December 3, 2004). Given the 4% growth rate of solid waste anticipated to be received by the landfill and the recent approved expansion of the fill to accommodate the anticipated growth rate for the service area through 2023, the proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs.
Other factors to consider in evaluating the proposed project's potential impacts relative to waste generation include construction debris, recycling efforts, and potential hazardous waste generation. Because the project site is primarily vacant with the exception of a limited number of out buildings associated with current agricultural operations, development of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in an exceptionally large amount of construction waste generation that may otherwise result from large demolition activities of existing structures.
Construction waste generation would be equivalent to that normally associated with new development and, therefore, would not substantially affect the landfill's capacity threshold to accommodate the service area. Therefore, potential impacts associated with solid waste generation and disposal is considered less than significant.
To ensure that the development of the proposed Specific Plan is maintained in compliance with the efforts of the City of San Jacinto to continue to meet the mandate of AB 393, a number of mitigation measures have been identified to facilitate appropriate waste generation minimization and recycling efforts, (see Section 5.12.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measures 5.12-d through 5.12-f).
Finally, CR&R Sanitary Service has indicated that it can serve future development in the Villages of San Jacinto area without the need to expand its Resource Recovery Center.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with solid waste disposal services are considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
5.12-d Demolition and/or excess construction materials shall be separated on site for reuse/recycling or proper disposal (e.g., concrete asphalt). During grading and construction, separate bins for recycling of construction materials and brush shall be provided on site.
5.12-e Landscaping shall be designed and located to utilize drought tolerant species, minimize irrigation, and to reduce green waste generation.
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.12-44
5.12-f The developer shall develop and submit a Solid Waste Management Plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Solid Waste Division and Planning and Development, and shall include:
• Provision of space and/or bins for the storage of recyclable materials within the project site,
• Methods of waste collection,
• Information programs to future residents regarding disposal of hazardous wastes.
Residual Impact/Level of Significance after Mitigation
The proposed Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan includes development standards that would apply to all future build-out of the planning area which specifically includes development elements and/or policies and measures to ensure that adequate solid waste facilities are provided in conjunction with build-out of the development. With implementation of the additional mitigation measures included above, impacts to solid waste facilities and providers would be less than significant.
5.13 HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.13-1
5.13 HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
5.13.1 Introduction/Methodology
The focus of this section is to outline existing hazards present on site, regulatory guidelines related to hazard assessment and clean-up if necessary and how the proposed project may have an impact on identified hazards or create new hazards to the surrounding community once constructed.
The following analysis is based on the October 10, 2002, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report prepared by Gradient Engineers, Inc. This report is contained in Appendix L to this EIR.
Methods used to survey and test the site are contained therein.
5.13.2 Existing Conditions
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment reported one residential structure, one large warehouse, one small warehouse, a storage shed, two office trailers, three groundwater wells (one domestic, two irrigation), shelter areas for cows and equipment storage areas on site. A detention basin is located in the southwest corner of the site. As of a May 1, 2009, site visit, the only remaining structures were the abandoned residence which had deteriorated significantly from the time of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and shade structures associated with a former cattle operation (no cattle are currently present at the site). Figure 5.13-1, Hazardous Materials Site Map and Figure 5.13-2, Hazardous Materials Detailed Site Map show the location of each area described above.
On-Site Hazardous Material History
At the time of the survey for the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, the project site was used as a sod farm and a heifer raising facility. Since 1949 (date of first available records), the property was used for agricultural purposes. In 1980, a heifer farm was established on site. By 1997, part of the property was converted into a sod farm. Quality Turf has leased a portion of the property for production of sod since 1997. Approximately twenty acres of the property has been leased for heifer raising activities since approximately 1978. However, the heifer raising facility was recently removed from the site, along with the manure which was converted to compost. The surrounding area consists of rural agricultural land uses. Agricultural land is located to the north and east while vacant land and a chicken ranch are located west of the project site. The San Jacinto Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility is located to the south of the site.
One of the former land owners supplied the Phase I investigator with records detailing the removal of three Underground Storage Tanks (USTs). In 1999, two 1,000-gallon and one 10,000-gallon gasoline USTs were removed from the area southwest of the large warehouse. The
5.13 HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.13-2
area where these tanks were formerly located was over-excavated and approximately 120 tons of contaminated soil transported off site for treatment.
Total petroleum hydrocarbons in the gas range (TPHg), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). In October 2000, soil in this area of the property was retested for the above contaminants. In December 2000, a vapor extraction well was set up near the former tank locations to determine whether identifiable levels of petroleum hydrocarbons still existed. Contaminant level measurements of each sampling period are summarized in Table 5.13-1, Historic UST Soil Contaminant Levels.
Table 5.13-1
Historic UST Soil Contaminant Levels
Testing Period
Petroleum Hydrocarbon Tested
1999
(during UST removal) October 2000 December 2000 (vapor measurements) TPH-g 5,290 mg/kg 2,710 mg/kg Significant levels not detected Benzene 36.8 mg/kg Not Measured Significant levels not detected Toluene 638 mg/kg 131 mg/kg Significant levels not detected Ethylbenzene 200 mg/kg Not Measured Significant levels not detected Xylenes 352 mg/kg 486 mg/kg Significant levels not detected MTBE 377 mg/kg 169 mg/kg Significant levels not detected SOURCE: Gradient Engineers Inc, October 2002, p. 5.
Groundwater wells were also drilled to determine the depth of groundwater, and if appropriate, measure the level of contaminants. Groundwater was not encountered at 70 feet below ground surface and was expected to exist approximately 120 feet below ground surface. In December 2000, the Regional Water Quality Control Board recognized that the lack of identifiable vapors from the vapor test well indicated that remaining soil in the immediate area would not pose a threat to groundwater resources.
On December 26, 2001, the RWQCB issued a case closure summary and “no further action” letter for the previous underground storage tank issue. That said, the letter’s case closure summary states “corrective action should be reviewed if the land use changes.” A review of aerial photographs indicates that a windmill was historically located at the northwest corner of the site.
FIGURE Villages of San Jacinto EIR
Hazardous Materials Site Map
SOURCE: GRADIENT ENGINEERS, INC., OCTOBER 2002
SITE MAP
APN 431-020-005
APN 431-020-006
APN 431-020-015
5.13-1
See Figure 5.13-2
Detailed Site Map
açãÉëíáÅ=aÉÄêáë açãÉëíáÅ=aÉÄêáë
açãÉëíáÅ=aÉÄêáë
5.13 HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.13-4
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FIGURE Villages of San Jacinto EIR
Hazardous Materials Detailed Site Map 5.13-2
SOURCE: GRADIENT ENGINEERS, INC., OCTOBER 2002
Detailed Area from
Figure 5.13-1
DETAILED SITE MAP
APN 431-020-005
APN 431-020-006
APN 431-020-015
5.13 HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.13-6
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5.13 HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.13-7
On-Site Hazardous Material Current Presence
As indicated on Figure 5.13-1 and 5.13-2, in addition to the structures present on the site, the site reconnaissance noted one 5,000-gallon, one 8,000-gallon, and one 15,000-gallon tank. One 1,500-gallon aboveground water storage tank was also observed. Three diesel fuel above ground storage tanks were also observed on site. Stained and discolored soil was observed beneath the diesel tanks.
Mr. Ralph Daily, manager of the Quality Turf Farm operation, provided a list of hazardous chemicals used for sod farm operations. These chemicals include diesel fuel, waste oil, drained used oil filters, pesticides and herbicides, oil and hydraulic fluids. Oily staining was observed on the concrete pads on the equipment associated with the groundwater irrigation well located east of the reservoir. The floor within the equipment shed was observed to be stained with an oily substance beneath the three 55-gallon drums. The ground beneath the floor was not accessible/observable during the Phase I site reconnaissance.
Visual evidence of Polychlorinated Biphyenyls (PCBs) was not observed on site during the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment visit, however, transformers were observed on poles throughout the property. Staining was not observed beneath these transformers.
Petroleum stained soil was observed beneath the diesel above ground storage tank located northwest of the reservoir, near the irrigation groundwater well located southeast of the reservoir, and on the floor of the equipment shed, beneath three oil containing 55-gallon drums.
Debris, including old equipment, water heaters, trash, etc., was observed in several piles throughout the site (see Figure 5.13-1, “cultural debris”). Several mounds of soil were observed on site. According to Mr. Daily, the soil piles were generated from on-site activities and were piled as such for storage.
Two septic systems are located on site. One is located near the residential structures, its exact location unknown and the other northeast of the larger warehouse. One existing reservoir is located on site. This reservoir contains reclaimed water from the nearby San Jacinto Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility and is used for sod farm irrigation. Historic aerial photographs document previous reservoirs, however during the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, these reservoirs were no longer located on the property.
Three groundwater wells are located on site. One is used for domestic water while the other two are used for irrigation. According to Mr. Daily, the depth of the domestic water well is approximately 150 feet below ground surface while the irrigation wells range from 300 to 400 feet below ground surface. Oil, gas production or groundwater monitoring wells were not
5.13 HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.13-8
observed or reported at or near the site. The vapor extraction well noted above was abandoned in 2002.
An asbestos building material and lead-based paint assessments were not performed for the project site.
Off-Site Hazardous Material History/Presence
A search on the First Search Report Environmental Database Report System was conducted to determine presence of any nearby hazards outside of the property limit boundaries. The following databases were searched: Federal National Priorities List (NPL), Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), Federal Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Notifiers List, Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS), Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS), Department of Toxic Substances Control Sites (CALSITES), Solid Waste Landfill Facilities, Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites, Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites, and unmapped listings. A description of each list’s content is included in Section 4.1.2 of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment included as Appendix L to this EIR.
The above regulatory database lists were reviewed for cases pertaining to leaking USTs and ASTs, hazardous waste sites and abandoned sites within the specified radii of standards established by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The First Search Report did not indicate the presence of any facilities that appear to represent a potential source of migration of hazardous substances to soil or groundwater beneath the proposed project site.
The site’s location on several local databases was also searched. The following local databases were searched: Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, Riverside County Fire Department, California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Region), Department of Toxic Substances Control and South Coast Air Quality Management District.
In 1990, the State of California conducted a radon survey across the state. The results of the survey indicate that the testing area within which Riverside County is located, is below the U.S.
EPA radon action level.
5.13.3 Significance Criteria
Based on the criteria identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant impact on hazards/risk of upset if it:
1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
5.13 HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.13-9
2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
7. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
5.13.4 Impacts
Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Construction of the proposed project would involve the transport of gasoline and other potentially hazardous material to the project site for the sole purpose of equipment fueling.
However, once project construction is complete, the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials would be limited to household cleaning products, landscaping chemicals and fertilizers, and other substances associated with residential and recreation (park) uses and such items that may be available for resale in future commercial uses. Therefore, significant impacts are not anticipated to occur.
5.13 HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.13-10
Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Hazardous materials potentially found at the site are related to the historic use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; potential methane production related to former cattle feed lot; petroleum residues; household debris; and asbestos in older buildings.
Due to the historic use of approximately 20 acres of the property as a heifer raising farm, the presence of manure may result in significant environmental impacts related to methane gas exposure. In order to reduce potential impacts to a level below significance, mitigation is provided (see Section 5.13.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.13-a).
As indicated in Section 5.13.3, the vapor extraction test well installed in December 2000 to monitor residual contaminants left from the previous underground storage tanks did not indicate a significant presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil. Any remnant petroleum hydrocarbons remaining in the soil are not extensive enough to pose a threat to nearby groundwater. The issuance of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s “no further action” letter indicates that hazardous materials previously present on the site have been removed to a level that no longer poses a threat to the environment. Therefore, while the project site contains historic environmental hazards, these hazards have been removed and would no longer pose significant health risks to the public or environment. That said, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Riverside County Department of Health Services will be notified of the change in use and regulatory procedures may be required to ensure that the site is safe for reuse (see Section 5.13.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.13-b).
Historic windmills were often powered by diesel fuel. The diesel fuel source was often stored in underground storage tanks. During the Phase I Site Assessment, diesel storage tanks were not noted nor did they appear on federal or state databases within the vicinity of the old windmill.
That said, often underground storage tanks are unreported and therefore could be discovered during grading. If an underground storage tank or stained soil or soil with a petroleum hydrocarbon odor is uncovered, a potentially significant impact could occur. In order to reduce potential impacts related to undocumented underground storage tanks or contaminated soil, mitigation is provided (see Section 5.13.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.13-c).
According to Mr. Daily, when the sod is harvested, a portion of the soil is harvested along with the sod. Pesticides and herbicides are normally found in the upper one to two feet of soil, therefore, with the continual harvesting of the sod, it is unlikely that significant pesticide, herbicide or fertilizer residue remains in the soil or represent an environmental concern to development of the site. Early pesticide and/or herbicide use would have degraded into the soil
5.13 HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.13-11
over the years and would also not result in an existing environmental concern. Furthermore, the types of pesticides/herbicides used for current sod operations are not an environmental concern.
Visual evidence of Polychlorinated Biphyenyls (PCBs) was not observed on site during the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment visit, however, transformers were observed on poles throughout the property. Staining was not observed beneath these transformers. Therefore contamination from transformer activity on site is not expected. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
Petroleum stained soil was observed beneath the diesel above ground storage tank located northwest of the reservoir, near the irrigation groundwater well located southwest of the reservoir and on the floor of the equipment shed, beneath three oil containing 55-gallon drums. In order to avoid potential exposure of the environment or the public to potential contaminants in these areas, mitigation is provided (see Section 5.13.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.13-d).
Debris, including old equipment, water heaters, trash, etc., was observed in several piles throughout the site. In order to avoid potential significant impacts related to improper disposal of debris piles, mitigation is provided (see Section 5.13.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.13-e).
Two septic systems are located on site. In order to reduce potential impacts related to biohazard contamination as a result of septic tank residue, mitigation is provided (see Section 5.13.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.13-f).
Once the project is developed, domestic water will come from imported water sources from Eastern Municipal Water District rather than on-site groundwater supplies. In order to close the three on-site groundwater wells, and any additional wells that are discovered during site development, without resulting in potentially significant impacts to the environment, namely local groundwater sources, mitigation is provided (see Section 5.13.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.13-g).
In 1990, the State of California conducted a radon survey across the state. The results of the survey indicate that the testing area within which Riverside County is located, is below the U.S. EPA radon action level. Therefore, the potential for elevated radon levels at the site appear to be low.
Due to the age of many on-site buildings, the potential for asbestos-laden material exists on site.
In order to reduce any impacts related to asbestos hazards, mitigation is provided (see Section
5.13.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.13-h).
5.13 HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.13-12
Due to the age of many on-site buildings, the potential for lead-based paint materials exists on site. In order to reduce any impacts related to lead-based paint hazards, mitigation is provided (see Section 5.13.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.13-i).
Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? There are no existing schools within one-quarter mile of the site, but the project includes a planning area for a potential high school. However, the project does not include any proposed land uses which would result in the release or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials.
Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment?
As indicated in the second impact response above, a number of hazardous conditions may exist on the project site due to historical uses. All of these potential impacts have been reduced to a less than significant level with recommended mitigation. As discussed above under Section
5.13.2, a search of federal databases was conducted to determine presence of any nearby hazards outside of the property limit boundaries which did not indicate the presence of any facilities that appear to represent a potential source of migration of hazardous substances to soil or groundwater beneath the proposed project site.
For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
The project would not subject users to safety hazards associated with public or private airports, since no airports are located within two miles of the project site.
Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
In order to reduce the potential for construction traffic conflicts which may include emergency evacuation plans, a traffic control plan shall be developed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, as a standard condition of the project.
5.13 HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.13-13
Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
The project site is not located adjacent to wildland areas. The project site is surrounded by mainly by agricultural land uses, scattered residential and the water reclamation facility located to the south. As such, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
5.13.5 Mitigation Measures
5.13-a In order to ensure that methane hazards do not exist on the 20 acre portion of the site formerly used for heifer raising activities, the Riverside County’s Methane Investigation Protocol shall be followed during and after site preparation. After grading of the 20 acres, methane gas sampling and any associated mitigation mechanism installation shall occur in accordance with the most recent Riverside County Department of Environmental Health protocols.
5.13-b The Regional Water Quality Control Board and Riverside County Department of Health Services shall be notified of potential site reuse in accordance with the December 26, 2001 “no further action” letter provided for the remediated leaking underground storage tanks. These agencies may require additional processing or testing depending on the ultimate reuse of the specific area contaminated. In order to ensure that regulatory compliance has been met, on-site soils shall be tested prior to grading to determine the presence of contaminants. Testing results will help determine if permissible levels of contaminants have been exceeded. If levels have been exceeded, impacted soils shall be remediated in accordance with Riverside County Department of Health Service protocol.
5.13-c The former windmill site shall be flagged prior to site grading. During site grading near the former windmill site, a qualified hazardous materials specialist shall monitor grading activities. If an underground storage tank or petroleum hydrocarbon odor-laden soil is uncovered near the old windmill site, grading and site work shall cease and the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Riverside County Department of Health Services notified. A remediation plan shall be developed to ensure that all contaminated soil and structures are removed, handled and disposed of in accordance with existing state and local regulations. Sampling in the area of impacted soils shall continue until contaminant levels reach an acceptable risk.
5.13-d In order to mitigate for potential hazards associated with petroleum stained soil beneath diesel storage tanks and on the floor of the equipment shed beneath 55-gallon oil storing drums, collection of surface and near surface samples by a qualified hazardous materials
5.13 HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 5.13-14
specialist must occur. Following removal of the equipment shed, observations will be made for any stained soil beneath the shed. If stained areas are observed, surface and near surface samples shall be collected. Testing for contaminant levels must occur and an assessment of significance under state and local hazardous material regulations must follow. Once contaminant levels are determined, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Riverside County Department of Environmental Health must be contacted to determine the proper mitigation method prior to site redevelopment. Any soil and other materials contaminated with hazardous materials may be considered hazardous waste and therefore must be disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local regulations.
5.13-e During removal of debris piles, a qualified hazardous materials specialist shall be on site.
The hazardous materials specialist will conduct a site assessment of debris pile content and direct disposal accordingly. All waste products will be disposed of in accordance with state and local laws.
5.13-f In order to mitigate for potential hazards associated with existing septic tanks on site, the construction contractor shall remove the tanks and residue material in accordance with Riverside County Department of Environmental Health protocol. The project applicant will then be required to provide proof of septic tank removal to the City prior to issuance of building permits.
5.13-g In order to prevent groundwater contamination, the three on-site groundwater wells and vapor monitoring well, and any additional wells uncovered during site development, shall be abandoned and decommissioned in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board and Riverside County Department of Health protocols. The project applicant will be required to provide proof of well decommissioning to the City prior to issuance of building permits.
5.13-h Prior to demolition of on-site buildings, an asbestos survey shall be performed by a certified asbestos abatement contractor. Findings in the survey shall be used to determine what precautions shall be taken during demolition activities. If asbestos is present, removal shall occur in accordance with Riverside County Department of Environmental Health protocol.
5.13-i All building material suspected to contain lead-based paint shall be tested prior to demolition. If lead-based paints are present, removal shall occur in accordance with Riverside County Department of Environmental Health protocol.
5.13.6 Residual Impacts/Level of Significance after Mitigation Incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures would reduce any potential impacts to a level below significance.
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 6-1
SECTION 6.0
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
6.1 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
In many cases, the impact of a single project may not be significant, but when combined with other projects, the "cumulative" impact may be significant. Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines defines "cumulative impacts" as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b) states that "the discussion [of cumulative impacts] need not provide as great of detail as is provided of the effects attributable to the project alone." Section 15130(b) further states that a cumulative impacts discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.
Cumulative impacts can occur from the interactive effects of a single project. For example, the combination of noise and dust generated during construction activities can be additive and can have a greater impact than either noise or dust alone. However, substantial cumulative impacts more often result from the combined effect of past, present and future projects that are located in proximity to the project under review. For example, the wastewater treatment demand generated by a project may not be significant when analyzed alone, however, when analyzed in combination with the wastewater demands of approved or proposed projects, the wastewater demands may exceed the resource capabilities of the service agency, resulting in a significant cumulative impact. Therefore, it is important for a cumulative impacts analysis to be viewed over time and in conjunction with other related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments which may have impacts that might compound or interrelate with those of the project under review.
6.2 CUMULATIVE FORECASTING METHODOLOGY
Section 15130 (b)(1)(A) of the CEQA Guidelines allows for the preparation of a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future project as a viable method of determining cumulative impacts. This discussion utilizes that approach: an initial list and description of all related projects followed by a discussion of the effects that the proposed project may have on each environmental category of concern, such as traffic, noise, or biology. Consistent with CEQA, this discussion is guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.
6.3 LIST OF RELATED PROJECTS
This section of the analysis provides a list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Several development proposals, City projects and public infrastructure projects have been submitted for consideration or have been recently approved by local government agencies
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 6-2
in proximity to the proposed project that together with the proposed project would result in an increase in urban development/construction-related environmental impacts. To analyze cumulative impacts, the western San Jacinto area will serve as the study area which includes land along the western city limits to the general State Street area to the east (some projects east of State Street are included consistent with the traffic analysis as discussed below). Esplanade Avenue makes up the southern boundary and the northern city limits and areas adjacent to Ramona Expressway the northern boundary. The list of cumulative projects was compiled throughout the EIR preparation process (late 2004 to spring 2009). The existing list was updated in April 2009 in association with development of the most recent traffic report for the project (Villages of San Jacinto Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, April 24, 2009, included in Appendix H of this report). This list is similar to those contained in Table 5.9-4, 2023 Cumulative Project Trip Generation. However, some of the smaller projects and public infrastructure projects were not included in the traffic report. However, these projects have been included in the table below.
General project description information for each cumulatively considerable project is contained in Table 6.0-1, Villages of San Jacinto Cumulative Projects List. The location of each project is depicted on Figure 6.0-1, Cumulative Projects.
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01 August 2009 6-3
Table 6.0-1
Villages of San Jacinto Cumulative Projects List
Project Name
Map
Indicator Location Status Units/Square Footage Reference Urban Development Projects
SP 1-01 1 west of Warren Road in planning process (April 2009) 490 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project.
TR – 31037 2 west of Ramona Boulevard in planning process (April 2009) 131 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 31282 2 west of Ramona Boulevard in planning process (April 2009) 274 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 31154 2 west of Ramona Boulevard in planning process (April 2009) 135 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 31900 2 west of Ramona Boulevard in planning process (April 2009) 112 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 33072 2 west of Ramona Boulevard in planning process (April 2009) 140 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 33138 2 west of Ramona Boulevard in planning process (April 2009) 28 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project VTR – 31384 2 west of Ramona Boulevard in planning process (April 2009) 48 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 33249 2 west of Ramona Boulevard in planning process (April 2009) 25 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 34364 2 west of Ramona Boulevard in planning process (April 2009) 8 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 30814 3 northeast corner of North Sanderson Avenue/Cottonwood Avenue Intersection in planning process (April 2009)
155 single-family residential units
Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 30481 3
northeast corner of North Sanderson Avenue/Cottonwood Avenue Intersection in planning process (April 2009)
126 single-family residential units
Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Table 6.0-1 (Continued)
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01 August 2009 6-4
Project Name
Map
Indicator Location Status Units/Square Footage Reference TR – 31555 3
northeast corner of North Sanderson Avenue/Cottonwood Avenue Intersection in planning process (April 2009)
115 single-family residential units
Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 30813 3
northeast corner of North Sanderson Avenue/Cottonwood Avenue Intersection in planning process (April 2009)
186 single-family residential units
Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 30335 3
northeast corner of North Sanderson Avenue/Cottonwood Avenue Intersection in planning process (April 2009) 69 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 30944 3
northeast corner of North Sanderson Avenue/Cottonwood Avenue Intersection in planning process (April 2009)
102 single-family residential units
Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project VTR – 31097 4
northwest corner of North State Street/Cottonwood Avenue Intersection in planning process (April 2009)
214 single-family residential units
Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 31293 4
northwest corner of North State Street/Cottonwood Avenue Intersection in planning process (April 2009)
100 single-family residential units
Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 29384 4
northwest corner of North State Street/Cottonwood Avenue Intersection in planning process (April 2009) 39 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 31246 4
northwest corner of North State Street/Cottonwood Avenue Intersection in planning process (April 2009)
128 single-family residential units
Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 30878 5 South of Cottonwood Avenue, east of Sanderson Avenue in planning process (April 2009) 170 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 32250 6 South of Cottonwood Avenue, east of Sanderson Avenue in planning process (April 2009) 53 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Table 6.0-1 (Continued)
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01 August 2009 6-5
Project Name
Map
Indicator Location Status Units/Square Footage Reference TR – 30559 6 South of Cottonwood Avenue, east of Sanderson Avenue in planning process (April 2009) 20 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 31929 6 South of Cottonwood Avenue, east of Sanderson Avenue in planning process (April 2009) 78 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project VPM 31281 7A South of Ramona Expressway, north of project site in planning process (April 2009) 500 TSF commercial 62.5 TSF industrial Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project PM 31522 7B South of Ramona Expressway, north of project site in planning process (April 2009) 200 TSF commercial 250 TSF industrial Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project Bahan Hopkins 7C
Northeast of intersection of Ramona Expressway, Sanderson Avenue in planning process (April 2009) 1,100 TSF commercial Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project SJ 106, LLC 7D
Northeast of intersection of Ramona Expressway, Sanderson Avenue in planning process (April 2009)
250 TSF commercial 321 single-family residential units
Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project Target Center SP-1-
08 7E
southeast of intersection of Ramona Expressway, Sanderson Avenue in planning process (April 2009) 771 TSF commercial Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project McCleish Group 7F South of Ramona Expressway, north of project site in planning process (April 2009) 200 TSF commercial Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 30603 8 north of Esplanade Avenue east of Lyon Avenue in planning process (April 2009) 203 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 22665 8 west of North Sanderson Avenue immediately east of the northeast corner of the proposed project in planning process (April 2009)
147 single-family residential units
Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 29917 9 East of State Street in planning process (April 2009) 134 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 31794 9 East of State Street in planning process (April 2009) 62 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 32518 9 East of State Street in planning process (April 2009) 34 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Table 6.0-1 (Continued)
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01 August 2009 6-6
Project Name
Map
Indicator Location Status Units/Square Footage Reference TR – 31544 9 East of State Street in planning process (April 2009) 135 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 29992 10 east of State Street, north of Blodgett Street in planning process (April 2009) 30 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 30884 10 east of North Ramona Boulevard and west of Ramona Expressway in planning process (April 2009) 14 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 33509 10 south of Cottonwood Avenue and east of Lyon Avenue in planning process (April 2009) 37 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project VTR – 30484 11 East of State Street in planning process (April 2009) 117 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 31566 11 East of State Street in planning process (April 2009) 61 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 32053 12 East of State Street in planning process (April 2009) 178 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 32053 12 East of State Street in planning process (April 2009) 108 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 30644 13 East of State Street in planning process (April 2009) 66 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 31035 13 East of State Street in planning process (April 2009) 77 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 32376 13 East of State Street in planning process (April 2009) 337 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 31886 14 North of Ramona Boulevard in planning process (April 2009) 321 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 32843 14 North of Ramona Boulevard in planning process (April 2009) 143 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project PM 30532 14 North of Ramona Boulevard in planning process (April 2009) 2 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 32555 14 North of Ramona Boulevard in planning process (April 2009) 12 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Table 6.0-1 (Continued)
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01 August 2009 6-7
Project Name
Map
Indicator Location Status Units/Square Footage Reference SP 1-03 15 West of Gilman Springs Road in planning process (April 2009) 580 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. East of State Street April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 32080 15 West of Gilman Springs Road in planning process (April 2009) 53 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 29341 15 West of Gilman Springs Road in planning process (April 2009) 251 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 30597 16 Southwest of Sanderson Avenue and Cottonwood Avenue intersection in planning process (April 2009)
116 single-family residential units
Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 31855 16
Southwest of Sanderson Avenue and Cottonwood Avenue intersection in planning process (April 2009)
161 single-family residential units
Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 31855 17 East of State Street in planning process (April 2009) 126 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 31855 17 East of State Street in planning process (April 2009) 192 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project Kasbergen Hafliger
Property 17 East of State Street in planning process (April 2009) 147 single-family residential units 30 TSF commercial Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project SP 1-02 18 Northwest of Warren Road and Esplanade Avenue intersection in planning process (April 2009) 613 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR – 30828 19 West of Sanderson Avenue, south of Cottonwood Avenue in planning process (April 2009) 293 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR- 31544 20 East of Sanderson Avenue, south of Ramona Boulevard in planning process (April 2009) 134 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TTM 32155 21 West of Sanderson Avenue, south of Cottonwood Avenue in planning process (April 2009) 253 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR- 33408 22 East of Sanderson Avenue, south of Ramona Boulevard in planning process (April 2009) 210 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Table 6.0-1 (Continued)
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01 August 2009 6-8
Project Name
Map
Indicator Location Status Units/Square Footage Reference Cawston
Residential 23 West of Sanderson Avenue, south of Cottonwood Avenue in planning process (April 2009) 128 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project The Promenade 24 Just north of project site south of Ramona Expressway in planning process (April 2009) 600 Apartments 39 TSF office 40 TSF retail Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR- 30943 25
Northeast of project site west of Sanderson Avenue, south of Ramona Expressway in planning process (April 2009)
210 single-family residential units
Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project SP 1-07 26 North of Ramona Expressway, north of project site in planning process (April 2009) 228 single-family residential units 1,008 Condo residential units 174 TSF commercial 31 TSF office Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project PM 33196 30
Northeast of intersection of Sanderson Avenue and Esplanade Avenue. in planning process (April 2009) 118 TSF commercial Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project SR 10-06 33
Northwest corner of State Street and Cottonwood Avenue intersection in planning process (April 2009) 8.2 TSF Commercial Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project SR 04-07 33
Northwest corner of State Street and Cottonwood Avenue intersection in planning process (April 2009) 21.5 TSF Commercial Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project SR 16-06 34 East of State Street in planning process (April 2009) 12.2 TSF Medical Office Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project SR 19-06 35B West of State Street, north of Esplanade Avenue in planning process (April 2009) 74 TSF Medical Office Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project SR 20-06 36 Northeast of intersection of Warren Road and Cottonwood Avenue in planning process (April 2009) 64 TSF General Office Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Table 6.0-1 (Continued)
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01 August 2009 6-9
Project Name
Map
Indicator Location Status Units/Square Footage Reference SR 03-07 38 East of State Street, north of Esplanade Avenue in planning process (April 2009) 13.3 TSF Commercial Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project CUP 08-07 39
Southeast of intersection of Cottonwood Avenue and Sanderson Avenue in planning process (April 2009) 171 TSF Commercial Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project CUP 1-08 40
Southwest of intersection of Cottonwood Avenue and Sanderson Avenue in planning process (April 2009) 141 TSF Commercial Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project CUP 2-08 41
Northwest of intersection of Sanderson Avenue and Cottonwood Avenue in planning process (April 2009) 134 TSF Commercial Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR-30915 TR-32165 TR-32764
42 East of Lakeview Avenue, south of Ramona Expressway in planning process (April 2009) 419 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR-33177 TR-33178 43 East of Lakeview Avenue, south of Ramona Expressway in planning process (April 2009) 33 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR-29315 45 West of Lakeview Avenue, north of Nuevo Road in planning process (April 2009) 327 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project TR-31583 46 South of Nuevo Road in planning process (April 2009) 171 single-family residential units Urban Crossroads. April 2009. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project Public Infrastructure
Eastern Municipal Water District – San Jacinto Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility Agriculture Groundwater Exchange Not on
Map
South of proposed project limits east to San Jacinto River pump station and south to citrus fields.
Pending
construction of a pipeline and pump station to replace groundwater with up to 7,000 acre-feet of recycled water for citrus irrigation. www.emwd.org
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Table 6.0-1 (Continued)
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01 August 2009 6-10
Project Name
Map
Indicator Location Status Units/Square Footage Reference RCTC/Riverside County – SR 79 Realignment
Not on
Map
Gilman Springs Road to Domenigoni Parkway
Draft EIR/EIS expected to be circulated late 2009 with construction expected to begin by 2011. realignment of existing highway (linear facility) www.rctc.org RCTC/Riverside County – Mid County Parkway Project
Not on
Map
Ramona Expressway from its intersection with SR 79 to Cajalco Road to its intersection with I-15 Draft EIR/EIS expected to be circulated late 2009 with construction expected to begin by 2012. 32-mile east-west limited access route connecting Corona with San Jacinto www.rctc.org
Sanderson Avenue and Ramona Expwy. Intersection enhancements Not on
Map
Sanderson Avenue/Ramona Expwy. intersection
Scheduled construction: summer 2009
Intersection capacity enhancements and signal modification San Jacinto, City of. 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Program Sanderson Avenue/Cottonwood Avenue
Not on
Map
Street widening and improvements
Scheduled construction fall/winter 2009
roadway improvements San Jacinto, City of. 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Program Kirby Street/Cottonwood Avenue Traffic Signal
Not on
Map
Intersection of Kirby Street and Cottonwood Avenue Pending traffic signal installation San Jacinto, City of. 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Program Hewitt Street Storm Drain Line
Not on
Map
Hewitt Street from Commonwealth Avenue to Park Avenue
In Design storm drain pipeline (linear facility) San Jacinto, City of. 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Program Line G Flood Control project
Not on
Map
De Anza Drive from Palm Avenue to Lyon Avenue Pending storm drain pipeline (linear facility) San Jacinto, City of. 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Program San Jacinto River Levee
Not on
Map
From existing USACE levee to west of Sanderson Avenue
Construction Pending final engineering and environmental roadway rehabilitation (linear facility)
San Jacinto, City of. 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Program FIGURE
6.0-1 Villages of San Jacinto EIR Cumulative Projects
SOURCE: URBAN CROSSROADS
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 6-12
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 6-13
6.4 IMPACTS TO ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
Land Use Planning and Zoning
This project, when combined with the others planned within the western portion of the City of San Jacinto, would result in a large increase in suburban land uses adjacent to existing agricultural land uses. However, this area will continue to convert to urban-type uses consistent with the General Plan, which would ultimately alleviate potential land use conflicts between existing agricultural uses and planned development. Therefore, the cumulative impact of land uses would not be incompatible with the surrounding mixture of land uses planned within the area. This portion of the City, when combined with the other projects outlined in Table 6.0-1 would be consistent with the City of San Jacinto General Plan adopted on May 4, 2006, and the latest General Plan Land Use Map approved in February 2009 which reflects the future direction of land use form envisioned for this portion of the City. Analysis of individual projects as they are submitted to the City will ensure compatibility with applicable plans and policies.
Agricultural Resources
The proposed project would result in significant, unmitigable impacts to agricultural resources.
When combined with the other surrounding projects which also involve conversion of agricultural resources into suburban uses, a significant decrease in agricultural land use within the City of San Jacinto would occur. In summary, the project, when combined with many of the cumulatively considerable projects listed in Table 6.0-1, would contribute to a significant, unmitigable cumulative impact to agricultural resources. As discussed in Section 5.3, Agricultural Resources, the City’s General Plan EIR (January 2006) discusses a number of reasons mitigation for loss of agriculture is infeasible. Rising land costs to replace agricultural lands, increasing water costs, labor costs, urbanization and environmental regulations all contribute to ongoing conversion of farmland. Without property owner cooperation and substantial financial incentives, it is infeasible to provide permanent on or off-site mitigation to replace converted farmland.
Landform Alteration and Aesthetics
The proposed project will contribute to the gradual change in visual character of the Sanderson Avenue corridor and the western San Jacinto Valley. The project represents a transition from a rural and agricultural area to a landscape that can be characterized as suburban in nature. These visual changes will be most evident from Sanderson Avenue and other major roadways which have sweeping views of the project site. However, neither the project, nor cumulative development would represent a substantial degradation in visual quality of designated scenic resources such as the Lakeview Mountains or other unique topographic features or result in a substantial impediment to scenic views provided such development is consistent with planned
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 6-14
land uses in the vicinity of the project and with General Plan development and design guidelines.
Therefore, cumulative impacts related to visual resources are not anticipated.
Biological Resources
Although the project will result in minimal direct impacts to biological resources, development of this project, combined with the others described above would contribute to the increase in human presence within the western San Jacinto Valley. Continued development within the western areas of the City would extend urban land uses into vacant areas characterized by natural and/or agriculturally utilized habitats that are used by the region's sensitive plant and wildlife species. That said, the project is consistent with the Western Riverside County MSHCP, which is, in effect, an attempt at a cumulative/big-picture approach to mitigating the impacts of increased urban development on the region's plant and wildlife species. Analysis of individual projects for consistency with the MSHCP will provide mitigation for biological resources, including payment of development fees to support implementation of the MSHCP and will reduce cumulative impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Cultural Resources
Any potentially significant cultural resource impacts associated with development on surrounding projects would be site-specific and can be mitigated on a project-by-project basis.
Therefore, since individual projects would be fully mitigated, residual cumulative impacts to the region would not occur. Therefore, the cumulative effect when considering all these projects combined would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to cultural resources.
Geology/Soils
Most geology and soil hazards associated with development on surrounding projects would be site-specific and can be mitigated on a project-by-project basis. Such hazards include exposure of people or structures to rupture of an earthquake fault, liquefaction, landslides, unstable geologic units, and expansive soils. The individual project mitigation for these hazards will ensure that there are no residual cumulative impacts. There is potential for a cumulative impact of all related projects on soil erosion in the project area. However, the City of San Jacinto requires construction Best Management Practices which include soil stabilization and erosion control techniques. Therefore, no significant residual cumulative impacts related to geology and soils resources would occur.
Paleontological Resources
As with other cultural resources, all significant paleontological resources associated with this and other projects will be mitigated on a project-by-project basis. Because each project would be
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 6-15
required to fully mitigate for any potential paleontological resources, residual cumulative impacts to regional paleontological resources would not occur.
Water Quality and Hydrology
Runoff from project construction areas and parking lot and landscape irrigation systems will contribute to the incremental increase in urban runoff to the San Jacinto River system. However, compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements of attenuating all project drainage on site to ensure that post construction discharge does not exceed existing quantities, ensures that both a project-specific and cumulative increase to regional drainage (and therefore potential flooding of downstream systems) is avoided. Further, by ensuring that project mitigation measures (which are in the form of construction, design, and operational best management practices) are incorporated, any runoff does not result in a localized water quality contamination issue. Further, because all surrounding projects are regulated under the same City and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards, they too will be required to attenuate all drainage on site (to maintain pre development flow quantities) and incorporate water quality design features to prevent cumulative impacts to local drainage systems or water quality.
Further, although the City does not have control over it, a regional drainage master plan, referred to as the San Jacinto Master Drainage Plan (MDP) is being planned to provide a regional stormwater conveyance system for the western San Jacinto area. This regional drainage system will also help appropriately convey and/or attenuate drainage generated by future western San Jacinto urban development. This future facility would help with cumulative drainage issues in this region. However, as indicated above, the absence of this facility is not resulting in a projectspecific or cumulative impact to drainage because all existing projects in the planning process are being required to attenuate all flows on site in the interim basis.
Transportation, Circulation and Access
Implementation of the mitigation measures included in Section 5.9.5, Mitigation Measures, would ensure that regional traffic conditions do not dip below an acceptable LOS (LOS D) for existing plus project conditions. However, without completion of the Mid County Parkway and SR-79 projects, the project would contribute to a cumulative significant impact. Mitigation proposed for this significant cumulative impact is infeasible due to exceedance of General Plan roadway criteria (i.e., triple left turn lanes at Warren Road and Ramona Expressway, and extensive improvements required along Sanderson Avenue) and the uncertainty of obtaining adequate right-of-way for such measures. Therefore, because the City can not guarantee that regional improvements would be implemented prior to completion of the project, a significant unmitigable cumulative traffic impact would occur. That said, it should be noted that the unacceptable LOS conditions would occur with or without the project under cumulative
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 6-16
conditions in the absence of the Mid County Parkway and SR-79 improvements. Significant cumulative impacts can not be mitigated; therefore, significant cumulative impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project and many other cumulatively considerable projects depicted on Figure 6.0-1.
Air Quality
Regional Air Quality
Implementation of the project would result in short-term impacts to air quality associated with construction and long-term impacts associated with increased vehicle traffic to and from the site as well as energy use. Buildout of the proposed project would occur from 2011 to 2033, with the nonresidential land uses constructed during the last 10 years. As the proposed construction would occur over a 22-year time period, there is the potential that additional construction activity associated with future projects in the vicinity of the proposed project could occur concurrently and cumulatively impact the same sensitive receptors. Construction schedules for potential future projects are currently unknown; therefore, potential impacts to sensitive receptors that might be located within an area of overlap between emissions from two simultaneous projects are speculative. The CEQA Guidelines state that if a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15145). This analysis is nonetheless provided in an effort to provide good faith analysis and comply with CEQA's information disclosure requirements. Air pollutant emissions associated with construction activity of future projects would be reduced through the implementation of mitigation measures required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Cumulative PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would be reduced as all future projects would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which sets forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites in the SCAQMD. As indicated in Section 5.10, the application of architectural coatings (exterior/interior paint and other finishings) would produce VOC emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD's established quantitative significance threshold. As VOC is a precursor to ozone, construction of the proposed project along with other nearby projects would contribute to the South Coast Air Basin’s (SCAB) ozone nonattainment designation. The maximum 24-hour PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are anticipated to exceed the LST at the maximally impacted sensitive receptor in the vicinity of the project site during project construction. Fugitive dust, as well as vehicle and equipment exhaust, generated during project construction would also contribute to the SCAB nonattainment designation for PM10 and PM2.5.
Operations of the project would produce VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from all combined proposed residential and nonresidential project land uses. The projected operational emissions from both area source and vehicular emissions are substantially above the SCAQMD
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 6-17
significance criteria for all pollutants except SOx. Long-term operational air quality impacts are considered significant and unmitigable, even with application of all feasible mitigation measures.
The cumulative effect of the proposed project and other projects in the vicinity would incrementally contribute to the SCAB’s levels of O3, NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The location of the project within a nonattainment area for ozone PM10, and PM2.5, when combined with other foreseeable projects within the area would result in significant, unmitigable cumulative air quality impacts from both a short and long term perspective even with incorporation of all feasible area source and vehicular source mitigation measures. Because feasible mitigation measures consist of many emission reduction strategies (i.e., architectural design features, encouragement of alternative transportation, etc.), most of which help reduce emissions, current technology doesn’t allow for a complete reduction of emissions given the types of development proposed. Therefore despite the City’s efforts to require all feasible mitigation, significant unmitigable impacts would remain.
Global Climate Change
The project would also contribute to the overall production of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during construction and operation. As stated in Section 5.10.4, the proposed project's contribution to state, national, and GHG emission inventories and the resultant effect on global climate should be evaluated on a cumulative basis. The proposed project would generate GHG emissions, which would contribute to potential cumulative impacts of GHG emissions on global climate.
Under Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must discuss cumulative impacts if a project would have a cumulatively considerable effect on a resource, where "cumulatively considerable" is defined as "…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." However, as Section 15064(h)(4) states, "The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable." Therefore, the fact that the proposed project would result in emissions of GHGs (chiefly carbon dioxide), and that global GHG emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect and the resultant impacts on global climate, does not mean that the proposed project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts on global climate. The potential contribution of the project to this cumulative impact is evaluated relative to whether the project could impede or conflict with the emissions reduction targets and strategies prescribed in or developed to implement AB 32.
The proposed project is evaluated with respect to the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Climate Change Scoping Plan, which established the state's framework for meeting the goals of
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 6-18
AB 32. Many of the Scoping Plan measures to be adopted in the next several years will reduce GHG emissions from all development projects and their users in California. For example, adoption of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and more stringent energy conservation standards would apply to all motor vehicle users and owners of homes and commercial properties, including those of the proposed project. Given that the GHG reduction goal of AB 32 (i.e., reduction of emissions to 1990 levels by 2020) would require a statewide reduction of approximately 30% from "business as usual" (i.e., the emissions that would occur in the absence of any regulation of GHG emissions), a large portion of a specific project's GHG emissions will result from statewide measures. Nonetheless, each development project should incorporate measures intend to achieve the goals of AB 32.
The Specific Plan incorporates several design features that reduce indirect emissions of GHGs by reducing vehicle trips and conserving water that would otherwise be consumed by the proposed project:
• Incorporates commercial (retail) and mixed-use (office/retail) components to improve jobs/housing balance and reduce vehicle trips.
• Incorporates public and private on-site recreational facilities • Provides drought-tolerant and water-efficient landscaping for the community to reduce waste usage.
• Incorporates recycled water from Eastern Municipal Water District to supply the lake and irrigate landscaping to minimize the use of potable water.
By incorporating the commercial and mixed-use components of the proposed project, the project's residents will be able to use retail services and take advantage of job opportunities within proximity to the residential development. Thus, motor vehicle trips and their associated GHG emissions would be reduced relative to a project that would not include these nonresidential uses. The traffic impact analysis estimated that 5,020 trips are captured internally by the project for trips between the residential and commercial/mixed-use components. If these trips were required to go to off-site commercial and mixed-use locations, they would generate a minimum of 6,693 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2E) of GHGs. This amount would be even larger if the project residents were required to drive farther to such uses, which would be likely given the lack of retail and commercial development in proximity to the proposed project. Additionally, there are on-site recreational facilities which would further reduce the need for longer vehicle trips associated with such uses at another location.
The use of recycled water to supply the lake and for landscape irrigation will reduce the GHG emissions associated with electricity needed for conveyance, treatment, and distribution of potable water. The estimated amount of water needed to supply the lake and irrigation of
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 6-19
common landscaping area (e.g., parks and greenbelts) is 402 acre-feet per year. Using recycled water would offset an equivalent amount of potable water, which would result in the generation of 1,137 metric tons CO2E of GHG emissions from electricity for conveyance, treatment, and distribution.
Together, the incorporation of commercial/mixed-use components and use of recycled water would reduce the proposed project's GHG emissions by an estimated 7,830 metric tons CO2E per year, or 14%, relative to the business-as-usual scenario.
In addition, the Specific Plan would reduce GHG emissions associated with vehicle trips by encouraging pedestrian and bicycle activity within the community. The project would include a
9.6-acre network of paseos and pathways linking the Beach Club and lake to all of the residential neighborhoods, commercial and mixed use areas, and the recreational amenities including the neighborhood parks and the Community Park. Neighborhood design will maximize pedestrian access to the paseo system by providing that a minimum of 50% of the streets terminate in culde-sacs that access the paseos.
The following design guidelines have been incorporated into the Energy Efficiency Guidelines in the Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan to help reduce vehicle trips, electrical and natural gas usage, and conserve water, all of which would reduce the proposed project's GHG emissions.
Energy Efficiency
1. All buildings shall employ passive heating and cooling design strategies to the extent practical.
2. Shading of windows and entrance locations with a combination of structural elements and landscape materials will reduce heat gain and lower the temperature around each house.
3. Consider installing natural lighting systems such as skylights and interior transom windows to reduce energy consumption in commercial, office and municipal structures.
4. When appropriate to the architectural style, consider constructing light colored roof, which absorb less heat, reduce solar heat gain, and reduce use of mechanical cooling systems.
5. Use energy-efficient appliances and programmable thermostats to reduce the amount of consumed energy and reduce utility bills.
6. Automatic devices to turn off lights after business hours shall be used to the extent feasible in the commercial and business park land uses. Similarly, install timers on outdoor lighting to limit operating hours.
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 6-20
7. Install fluorescent bulbs in all indoor and outdoor fixtures unless unsuitable for the application.
8. Offer homebuyers the option of a natural gas stove, which reduces the consumption of electricity.
9. Use of passive solar energy minimizes the consumption of electricity. If possible, offer additional energy conservation features as homebuyer options, including but not limited to:
a. Photovoltaic panels for electrical power needs of home. b. Photovoltaic landscape lighting, gate openers, water features. c. Solar water heating system.
Water Conservation
1. Drought tolerant and native plants are required as part of the plant palette, as required by Riverside County Ordinance No. 859.
2. Use a drip irrigation system and/or zoned irrigation system with a rain sensor shutoff feature.
3. Consider xeriscape landscape treatments instead of lawns. Where lawns or gardens are proposed, incorporate detention grading and/or construct as a swale to allow for maximum detention and control of stormwater flows.
4. Utilize water efficient faucets, high-efficiency toilets (HETs), and water-conserving shower heads in residential homes.
Landfill Waste
1. During building construction, use long-lasting products, such as engineered lumber and durable, non-combustible flooring, siding, and roofing materials, if feasible.
2. Consider the use of sustainable building materials for use during building design and construction.
Pedestrian Activity and Bicycle Paths
1. Provide on-site improvements, such as sidewalks or pedestrian walkways, to promote onsite pedestrian activity and reduce the amount of vehicle trips within the community.
2. Provide a pedestrian access network and pedestrian facilities to internally link all uses and connect to all existing/planned external streets and public facilities.
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 6-21
3. Provide a designated bicycle route connecting all units, on-site bicycle parking facilities, and all streets contiguous with the community.
4. Design traffic calming elements to encourage walking and biking.
Implementation of these design guidelines would likely result in additional reductions in the GHG emissions from natural gas and electrical usage. However, those emission reductions cannot be quantified because the guidelines do not provide sufficient detail to compute the actual reductions in natural gas and electrical usage.
The Climate Change Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of AB 32. The Scoping Plan recommendations serve as statewide strategies to reduce the state's existing GHG emissions and proposed project's contributions.
Although a framework for the adoption of specific regulations and measures, the Scoping Plan is the current state's plan to reduce GHG emissions. Table 6.0-2, Project Consistency with Scoping Plan GHG Emission Reduction Strategies, highlights measures to be developed under the Scoping Plan that would be applicable to the proposed project or its users. The proposed project's consistency with the applicable Scoping Plan measures is assessed.
Table 6.0-2
Project Consistency with Scoping Plan GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Scoping Plan Measure
Measure
Number Project Consistency
Pavley Motor Vehicle Standards
(AB 1493)
T-1 The proposed project's residents and employees would purchase vehicles in compliance with CARB vehicle standards that are in effect at the time of vehicle purchase.
Limit High GWP Use in Consumer
Products
H-4 The proposed project's residents would use consumer products that would comply with the regulations that are in effect at the time of manufacture.
Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning
Systems – Reduction from NonProfessional Servicing
H-1 The proposed project's residents would be prohibited from performing air conditioning repairs and required to use professional servicing.
Tire Pressure Program T-4 Motor vehicles driven by project residents and employees would maintain proper tire pressure when their vehicles are serviced.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard T-2 Motor vehicles driven by project residents and employees would use compliant fuels in the future.
Water Use Efficiency W-1 The Specific Plan includes measures to minimize water use and maximize efficiency.
Water Recycling W-2 The proposed project will use recycled water for the lake and irrigation of common landscaped areas.
Solar Water Heating (AB 1470) CR-2 The Specific Plan includes an energy efficiency guideline to offer home purchasers the option of installing solar hot water heaters.
Million Solar Roofs E-4 The Specific Plan includes an energy efficiency to offer home purchasers the option of installing photovoltaic panels for electrical power needs.
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Table 6.0-2 (Continued)
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 6-22
Scoping Plan Measure
Measure
Number Project Consistency
Green Buildings GB-1 The proposed project will be required to be constructed in compliance with state or local green building standards in effect at the time of building construction.
Air Conditioning Refrigerant Leak Test
During Vehicle Smog Check
H-5 Motor vehicles driven by the proposed project's residents and employees would comply with the leak test requirements during smog checks.
Renewable Portfolios Standard (33%
by 2020)
E-3 The electricity used by residents and businesses in the proposed project will benefit from reduced GHG emissions resulting from increased use of renewable energy sources.
Energy Efficiency Measures
(Electricity)
E-1 The proposed project will comply with energy efficiency standards for electrical appliances and other devices at the time of building construction.
Energy Efficiency (Natural Gas) CR-1 The proposed project will comply with energy efficiency standards for natural gas appliances and other devices at the time of building construction.
Greening Public Schools GB-1 The proposed school would meet green building standards that are in effect at the time of design and construction.
Greening New Residential and
Commercial Construction
GB-1 The proposed project's residential and commercial buildings would meet green building standards that are in effect at the time of design and construction.
Greening Existing Homes and
Commercial Buildings
GB-1 The proposed project's residential and commercial buildings would meet retrofit standards when they become effective.
SOURCE: CARB 2009.
In addition to the strategies being developed under the Climate Change Scoping Plan, the Attorney General and others have recommended mitigation measures that can be applied to a project to reduce its GHG contribution. The Attorney General's list (Office of the California Attorney General 2008) includes many of the measures that are project design features or are incorporated into the Specific Plan's Energy Efficiency Guidelines. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Design buildings to be energy efficient. Site buildings to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping and sun screens to reduce energy use. • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral part of lighting systems in buildings.
• Install light colored “cool” roofs, cool pavements, and strategically placed shade trees • Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems.
• Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting.
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 6-23
• Install solar and wind power systems, solar and tankless hot water heaters, and energyefficient heating ventilation and air conditioning. • Create water-efficient landscapes.
• Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls.
• Use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation in new developments and on public property. Install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. • Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances. • Include mixed-use, infill, and higher density in development projects to support the reduction of vehicle trips, promote alternatives to individual vehicle travel, and promote efficient delivery of services and goods.
• Preserve and create open space and parks.
• Create travel routes that ensure that destinations may be reached conveniently by public transportation, bicycling or walking.
• Incorporate bicycle lanes and routes into street systems, new subdivisions, and large developments
• Create bicycle lanes and walking paths directed to the location of schools, parks and other destination points.
In January 2008, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) published CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CAPCOA 2008). This white paper is "intended as a resource, not a guidance document. It is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to dictate the manner in which an air district or lead agency chooses to address greenhouse gas emissions in the context of its review of projects under CEQA" (CAPCOA 2008). However, this document provides an extensive list of potential GHG mitigation measures; however, many of them would be only implementable by the users of the proposed project and not enforceable by the City or the applicant. Again, many of them, as listed below, are project design features or incorporated into the Energy Efficiency Guidelines:
• Bike parking
• Proximity to bike path/bike lanes
• Pedestrian network
• Orientation to existing/planned transit, bikeway, or pedestrian corridor • Suburban mixed use
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 6-24
• No wood-burning fireplaces or stoves
• Energy efficient appliances
• Shading mechanisms
• Programmable thermostats
• Passive heating and cooling systems.
Based on the analysis in Table 6.0-2, the proposed project would substantially reduce its contribution to GHG emissions and global climate due to its consistency with the strategies and measures in the Scoping Plan, as well as mitigation measures suggested by the Attorney General and CAPCOA. In addition, the proposed project would result in GHG emissions of approximately 49,650 metric tons per year (0.05 million metric tons) as shown in Table 5.10-13, which is 14% below the level that would have been emitted under a business-as-usual scenario.
Furthermore, compared to the estimated GHG for all sources in California (423 million metric tons, excluding out-of-state electrical generation, in 2004), the project would result in a contribution of approximately 0.012% to California's GHG emissions inventory without accounting for the implementation of statewide emissions that would reduce both the project's and the state's emission inventories. In light of the project's consistency with the Scoping Plan and other suggested measures through its design features and Energy Efficiency Guidelines and its substantial reduction from business as usual, it is concluded that the proposed project would not impede or conflict with the emissions reduction targets and strategies prescribed in or developed to implement AB 32. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Noise
Cumulative noise impacts are discussed in terms of traffic related noise and a general increase in urbanization in an area. A project specific contribution to cumulative traffic noise would be evaluated on an individual basis, and if significant impacts are identified (e.g., non-compliance with noise standards) then mitigation requirements would be imposed. In the long term, the increase in traffic noise from the proposed project and cumulative developments (i.e., General Plan build-out) is calculated to range from 5 to 7 dB, which is a noticeable change in the noise environment. The noise increase associated with traffic from cumulative developments is therefore considered potentially significant. However, the project's contribution to cumulatively significant traffic noise impacts is less than significant (1 dB or less increase, which by itself is not a discernible increase). Consequently, mitigation is not required for the project's contribution to off-site noise impacts associated with General Plan build-out traffic volumes but is required
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 6-25
for the cumulatively significant impact, Mitigation to address this significant cumulative noise impact is included in Section 5.11.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.11-a.
Public Services and Utilities
The project would involve an incremental increase in demand for public facilities. As described in Section 5.12, Public Services and Utilities, consistency and contribution to City public facility fee structures would eliminate adverse cumulative impacts on local sewer, water, police and fire services. The proposed project includes development standards that would apply to all future build-out of the planning area which specifically includes development elements and/or policies and measures to ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided in conjunction with build-out of the development.
Hazards/Risk of Upset
Potential hazards associated with development of the project and development of surrounding projects would be site-specific and can be mitigated on a project-by-project basis. Each project is required to ensure that no hazardous conditions exist at the project site or that the project itself would not result in a hazard to the public or the environment. The proposed project could potentially result in significant hazard impacts, however mitigation has been provided which would reduce project-specific impacts to a level below significance. Because all projects are required to fully mitigate any on-site hazards, residual cumulative impacts related to hazards/risk of upset would not occur.
6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 6-26
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 7-1
SECTION 7.0
EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
7.1 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR briefly describe any potential environmental effects that were determined not to be significant during the initial project scoping and, therefore, were not discussed in detail in the EIR.
Several subjects required to be analyzed under CEQA were determined not to be potentially significant during Initial Study preparation and during the public scoping period. Therefore, these environmental issues have not been analyzed in the EIR and have received no further consideration.
7.2 ISSUES FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Mineral Resources
The main mineral resource recovery areas within western Riverside County are in the Temescal Wash area, the Santa Ana River Valley, and sporadic pockets dotted throughout the lowland areas. Valuable sand, gravel, and crushed rock resources, which are extremely important to the local and regional construction industry, are located within these areas. The project is located within a "MRZ-3" designation in the Riverside County General Plan Open Space Element. "MRZ-3" indicates that there are significant mineral deposits within the area; however, the significance of the deposits have yet to be determined (County of Riverside 2003, p. OS-26 and Figure OS-5).
The project site is underlain by alluvial materials composed of inter-bedded sands and silts (Leighton and Associates 2004). Mineral resources are generally composed of gravels and rock materials. The site, therefore, does not support mineral resources that are considered to be of high value.
Population and Housing
The CEQA Appendix G Checklist includes two basic questions related to population and housing: (1) Will the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, and (2) Will the project displace substantial numbers of people or residences, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The first question relates to the project’s growth inducing nature; therefore, this issue is discussed in Section 8.0, Growth Inducing Impacts. The second question relates to displacement, which is an “Effect Found Not to be Significant” and is therefore discussed below.
7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 7-2
One unoccupied residence is currently located on the project site. The project would therefore involve the removal of this dwelling. The loss of one residence would be sufficiently offset by the construction of up to 1,329 new residential units on the site. Therefore, significant impacts related to population and housing displacement would not occur.
Noise
The CEQA Appendix G Checklist includes two questions related to noise, which were not discussed in Section 5.11, Noise: (1) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise, and (2) For a project within the vicinity if a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The project is not located within 2 miles of a public airport or private use airport. Therefore, impacts associated with aircraft noise to people residing on the project site would not occur.
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 8-1
SECTION 8.0
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines mandate that the growth inducing nature of the proposed project be discussed. This CEQA Guideline states the growth inducing analysis is intended to address the potential for the project to “foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” Further, as discussed in Section 7.0, Effects Found Not Significant, the CEQA Appendix G Checklist (Population and Housing) also mandates that a CEQA document speak to the project’s likelihood to induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
A project may be distinguished as either facilitating planned growth or inducing unplanned growth. Facilitating growth is relating to the establishment of direct employment, population or housing growth that would occur within a project site. Inducing growth is related to lowering or removing barriers to growth or by creating an amenity or facility that attracts new population/economic activity. For purposes of this EIR analysis, a significant growth inducement impact would occur if the project, and all associated infrastructure improvements, directly or indirectly remove obstacles to growth such that the induced growth would significantly burden existing community services, the environment or cause a demand for General Plan Amendments.
The large-scale nature of the project would contribute substantial funding for roadway and utility infrastructure improvements needed to accommodate growth planned in the western portion of the City of San Jacinto. The project would not contribute excess infrastructure capacity that would induce growth in surrounding areas, but would rather help accommodate the continued population influx in western Riverside County over the next several decades. Improvements to transportation, utilities and public service infrastructure as part of the project would help alleviate existing infrastructure deficiencies and accommodate planned growth, but would not result in a significant amount of unplanned growth to the area. For example, water and sewer pipelines in North Sanderson Avenue are already sized appropriately to service the site, the project would not result in an extension of large-capacity pipeline network beyond what is already in place that could then facilitate easy connections by other planned developments within the area. Similarly, while the project would result in a General Plan Amendment, significant growth inducing impacts to land use would not occur as this project site and the surrounding land is planned for urban uses. No features of the proposed project, on its own, would encourage or enhance the likelihood of growth in the surrounding areas other than anticipated under the applicable general plan. Therefore, while the project will induce planned population growth in the area, it will not induce growth in the area that is not already planned and permitted under the City’s General Plan. Therefore growth inducing impacts would not occur.
8.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 8-2
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 9-1
SECTION 9.0
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
9.1 Significant Effects Which Cannot be Avoided
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to identify significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented. As discussed in this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would result in significant project impacts to agriculture and air quality and contribute to a significant unavoidable impact for cumulative traffic conditions. As discussed in Section 5.3, Agricultural Resources, there is no feasible mitigation to replace agricultural resources and this impact will therefore remain significant and unavoidable. Even with application of feasible mitigation measures, significant unavoidable air quality impacts will occur due to application of architectural coatings, potential CO “hotspots,” and projected operational emissions from both area source and vehicular emissions. Because the City can not guarantee that the MCP and SR 79 projects would be in place prior to project build-out, the project would contribute to a significant, unavoidable cumulative impact to regional traffic service levels in the absence of these facilities.
9.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Caused by the Project Should it be Implemented
CEQA Section 15126.2(c) requires the evaluation of the uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of a project when a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non-removal or non-use thereafter unlikely. Approval of the proposed development of the site from an agricultural operation to a residential/commercial/business park community commits the area to urban uses. The project would permanently remove approximately 475.1 acres of land from local agricultural production. However, the change in use is both planned and projected. The proposed project would require commitment of nonrenewable resources associated with construction and long-term operation, including but not limited to, lumber and other related forest products, sand, gravel and concrete, asphalt, petrochemical construction materials, steel, copper, lead and other metals, water, fuels and energy. Use of these resources would represent an incremental effect on the regional consumption of these commodities.
Implementation of the Villages of San Jacinto project would involve consumption of energy resources, such as electricity and natural gas, derived from non-renewable sources such as fossil fuels.
The predominant irreversible environmental change that would occur as a result of the project would be continuation of planned commitment of land resources to urban/developed uses. This would constitute a permanent change. Once construction occurs, reversal of the land to its
9.0 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 9-2
original condition is nearly impossible. Other permanent changes would include more traffic and hence noise, permanent landform alteration, increased human presence in the area and the transition from a rural to urban development. Irreversible commitments of energy resources would occur with the proposed project. These resources would include electricity, natural gas, potable water and building materials.
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR identify "feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts, including where relevant, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy" (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15126.4(a)(1)). Examples of energy conservation measures are provided in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.4(a)(1)(C)). The proposed project will consume energy in several different forms: gasoline and diesel fuels for motor vehicles; natural gas for water and space heating and cooking; electricity to operate lighting, heating and air conditioning systems, water transport including water for landscaping, and other uses.
Appendix F, Energy Conservation, of the CEQA Guidelines, recommends that EIRs include a discussion of the potentially significant energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy (see also Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3)). Appendix F also states that mitigation measures may include siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy, water conservation and solid-waste reduction; the potential for reducing peak energy demand; alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems; energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts; and other potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal.
The Specific Plan identifies elements in the site planning, design and construction phases that would be implemented to achieve a high level of energy efficient performance. Following standard planning and building practices typically ensures compliance with building code requirements and issuances of the necessary permits; however, implementation of the Specific Plan’s Energy Efficient Guidelines are intended to reduce energy use even further, thereby reduce operating costs and contributing to the reduction in environmental impacts associated with air quality, hydrology, water quality, hazards, and utilities. The Specific Plan’s Energy Efficient Guidelines, summarized below, are consistent with Appendix F recommended mitigation measures.
The Energy Efficiency Guidelines include the following strategies to minimize the energy demands of the proposed project:
• Passive heating and cooling design strategies such as orientation • Natural ventilation, including cross-ventilation in residential units
9.0 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 9-3
• High insulation values, energy efficient windows including high performance glass • Light-colored roofing and exterior walls
• Window shading through strategically placed landscaping • Landscaping that provides shading during appropriate seasons • Natural lighting systems such as skylights and interior transom windows in commercial, office and municipal structures
• Energy-efficient appliances and programmable thermostats.
The Specific Plan also includes water conservation strategies that would reduce water demand and the associated electrical consumption for water transport and distribution. The water conservation strategies include:
• Utilization of water-efficient faucets, high-efficiency toilets (HETs), and waterconserving shower heads in residential homes • Drought tolerant and native plants, as required as part of the plant palette in the Specific Plan
• Installation of xeriscape landscape treatments instead of lawns • Drip irrigation systems and/or zoned irrigation systems with a rain sensor shutoff feature • Use of reclaimed waste water for irrigation of community landscaping.
In addition to water conservation, smart landscaping practices included in the Specific Plan would also reduce the reliance on mechanical cooling systems and the associated electrical consumption. Shade-producing trees planted in accordance with the Specific Plan's Shade Standards, would minimize the heat island effect, while permeable materials reduce the amount of heat absorbed and re-radiated from the surface and prevent additional solar heat gain surrounding residences. The Specific Plan also includes improvements to the existing street network to promote on-site bicycle and pedestrian activity and reduce the amount of vehicle trips and associated motor vehicle fuel use within the community. These improvements include:
• Development of sidewalks or pedestrian walkways
• Pedestrian access network and pedestrian facilities to internally link all uses and connect to all existing/planned external streets and public facilities • Designated bicycle route connecting all units, on-site bicycle parking facilities, and all streets contiguous with the community
• Traffic calming elements to encourage walking and biking.
9.0 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 9-4
In addition to the Specific Plan’s Energy Efficient Guidelines, the commercial/mixed-use elements of the proposed project would reduce total vehicle-miles traveled and associated motor vehicle fuel use. As commercial and retail uses would be within close distance to residential uses, trip lengths would be reduced. Development of commercial uses within walking or bicycling distance of residences would help to reduce reliance on motor vehicles. Although the implementation of the proposed project would involve consumption of energy resources, such as electricity and natural gas, derived from non-renewable sources such as fossil fuels, the project incorporates energy conservation strategies that would reduce the project’s incremental effect on regional energy consumption.
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 10-1
SECTION 10.0
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a "reasonable" range of alternatives. According to the CEQA Guidelines, "…an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Section 15126.6(a)). Specifically, the Guidelines require the analysis of the No Project Alternative and alternatives which would be "capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project" (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Section 15126.6(b)). It also requires a discussion of why other alternatives were rejected if they were considered in developing the proposed project and still would meet the project objectives. Although an exhaustive analysis is not necessary, an EIR "must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation" (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Section 15126.6(a)).
Pursuant to the guidelines stated above, a range of alternatives to the proposed project are considered and evaluated in this EIR. These alternatives were developed in the course of project planning, environmental review, and public hearings. The discussion in this section provides:
In order to summarize these project alternatives, as suggested in CEQA Section 15126.6(d), a matrix has been prepared to summarize and compare the impacts of each project alternative.
10.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED
The following alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
10.1.1 Alternative Site Location
Off-site alternative locations were considered as part of the alternatives process. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A), the key question and first step in analysis of the off-site location is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location.
It should be noted that the availability of an alternative site does not in and of itself reduce impact potential. It is expected that developing a similar project would result in a similar array of project impacts and would simply transfer this impact potential to areas surrounding the alternate site location. For these reasons, an alternate site location would not necessarily be preferred over the proposed project site.
10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 10-2
Project Description
Due to the undeveloped nature and existing land use designations found throughout much of the areas surrounding the project vicinity, suitable sites exist for this type/scale of development in the surrounding area.
Environmental Analysis
Because of the type, number of units and densities proposed, a similar amount of land would be required to accommodate the project at a different location. Depending on the location of this alternative, it would be expected to result in similar impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise and public services to that of the proposed project at its present location, and would require a similar level of mitigation to reduce identified impacts to less than significant levels. If an alternative site included important farmland as designated by the California Resources Agency, it would result in a similar direct unavoidable impact due to loss of agricultural resources. An alternative location would also have unavoidable air quality impacts due to application of architectural coatings, potential CO "hotspots," and projected operational emissions from both area source and vehicular emissions. It would also likely have significant urban/rural land use conflicts between the planned development and existing agricultural uses in the area. The trip generation associated with the project would be the same; therefore, the alternative site location would be expected to contribute to a significant unavoidable impact for cumulative traffic conditions if the MCP and SR 79 projects are not in place upon completion.
Consideration/Elimination
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (f)(1), "Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)." The applicant cannot reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site; therefore, an alternative site is infeasible. Additionally, since project related impacts would be similar for surrounding area properties, project development on an alternative site would simply shift impacts from one area to another, without the benefit of removing any significant unavoidable impacts.
10.2 ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION
Three alternatives were deemed appropriate for analysis in this EIR section. Because it was initially determined that the "Reduced Density" and "Existing General Plan Designation"
10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 10-3
alternatives could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects, these two alternatives are analyzed.
While the third alternative, "No Project/No Development" would not likely meet most of the project objectives, CEQA requires that this scenario also be analyzed. Inclusion of the No Project/No Development alternative provides the public/decision makers with a reasonable range of choices and allows comparison of impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project.
Each alternative is analyzed for potential environmental effects including Landform Alteration/Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Cultural Resources, Paleontological Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Transportation, Circulation and Access, Air Quality, Noise, Public Utilities and Services and Hazards/Risk of Upset. Due to the lack of significant Land Use/Planning impacts, this issue is not discussed in this alternatives analysis. After each environmental issue is analyzed, a consideration/elimination discussion follows. This discussion relates to the project's feasibility as well as the project's relationship to the project objectives included in Section 3.0, Project Description.
CEQA Section 15126.6(c) indicates that a project alternative should meet "most" of the basic objectives of the project. In an attempt to provide an equal analysis factor, "most" is met if over eight of the twelve project objectives are met (roughly two thirds). To determine feasibility, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency and other regulatory/planning limitations were considered.
10.2.1 No Project/No Development Alternative
Project Description
The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that the project site would not be developed and the existing land uses (agricultural operations) present would remain.
Environmental Analysis
Landform Alteration and Aesthetics
The No Project/No Development Alternative would maintain existing aesthetic conditions on the site and would continue to contribute to the existing agricultural nature of the western San Jacinto Valley area. However, none of the proposed landscape improvements along adjacent roadways would occur without project development.
10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 10-4
Agricultural Resources
The No Project/No Development Alternative would result in the continuance of agricultural resource use on the project site. Significant, unmitigable impacts to agricultural resources (such as would occur with the proposed project) would be avoided. The persistence of agricultural use on the site would maintain the non-conforming use on the site as the site is planned for residential and commercial land uses in the existing General Plan Planned Land Use Map. Due to the existing residential General Plan designation, it is reasonable to assume that future development proposals will be brought forward for this project site. Therefore, the No Project/No Development alternative may not ensure that agricultural resources remain on site well into the future.
Biological Resources
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in any direct impacts to on-site biological resources. All impacts to biological resources present on site would be avoided.
Geology and Soils
Potential geologic impacts related to seismically induced earth movement would be avoided under the No Project/No Development Alternative. The existing faults located on site would continue to exist and not pose a risk to structures due to the undeveloped nature of the site.
Cultural Resources
This alternative would not involve disturbing any subsurface material that could potentially support cultural resources beyond existing agricultural activities. It is not possible to predict the type of agricultural use that would remain on the project site; if future agricultural uses were to occur on site which required excavation or heavy land disturbance, if present, cultural resources may be impacted.
Paleontological Resources
This alternative would not involve disturbing any subsurface geologic formations that could potentially support paleontological resources as would the proposed project. It is not possible to predict the type of agricultural use that would remain on the project site; if future agricultural uses were to occur on site which required excavation or heavy land disturbance, if present, paleontological resources may be impacted.
10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 10-5
Water Resources and Water Quality
Potential impacts associated with increased urban runoff, such as the introduction of petroleum products from paved surfaces would be avoided under the No Project/No Development Alternative. However, structural systems are not currently in place to control the pollutants associated with the existing land uses. Based on the proximity of the site to the San Jacinto River, potential hazards to runoff and water quality from the existing agricultural uses may be present. Further, no development on the site would eliminate the potential for contribution to the City's overall master drainage plan/infrastructure construction within the western San Jacinto area.
Transportation, Circulation and Access
This alternative would not promote additional trips along North Sanderson, Cawston Avenue, Odell Avenue and other nearby roadways such as SR 79, State Street, Ramona Expressway, SR 74 and Ramona Boulevard. It should be noted that the no project alternative would not assist the City of San Jacinto in completing circulation infrastructure in this growing area of the City due to the elimination of proposed improvements being made by the applicant and by no contribution of TUMF fees from project development.
Air Quality
The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid the air quality impacts associated with site grading, construction, vehicular emissions and building operations.
Noise
Noise impacts associated with the proposed project would be avoided by the No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative. However, as the western portion of the City of San Jacinto continues to be built-out and development/traffic increases along North Sanderson Avenue, Cawston Avenue, Odell Avenue and other surrounding streets, the ambient noise setting within the area will increase regardless of project implementation. The project's elimination would not necessarily improve the existing and future noise environment.
Public Services and Utilities
The elimination of development on this site would reduce the demand for local public services and facility capacity and would also not provide for expansion of infrastructure.
10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 10-6
Hazards/Risk of Upset
The potential for additional hazards and the risk of upset of unknown hazards would not occur under this alternative. While implementation of the No Project/No Development alternative would not disturb soils on site that may result in a release of contaminants, it would also not result in the beneficial effect of cleanup on the site.
Relationship to Project Objectives
The No Project/No Development Alternative WOULD meet the following project objectives:
• Consider topographic, geologic, hydrologic, and environmental opportunities and constraints to create a design which safely accommodates seismic and hydrologic hazards.
This alternative would NOT meet the following project objectives (explanations follow each objective and have been italicized):
• Provide for the establishment of a master-planned community through implementation of a Specific Plan, consisting of a maximum of 1,329 dwelling units, which is consistent with the scale and character of planned land uses in surrounding areas.
This alternative would result in continuing agricultural use and vacant fallow land that would not result in establishment of a master-planned community. • Provide a variety of detached single-family lot sizes in traditional and non-traditional subdivision layouts that offer a wide range of affordability to meet the changing economic and demographic profile of the City of San Jacinto.
This alternative would not result in any new housing opportunities. • Provide public and private recreational amenities for the benefit of residents of this community and of the City of San Jacinto.
There would be no new recreational amenities associated with this alternative. • Provide drought-tolerant and water-efficient landscaping for the community.
No new landscaping of any kind would be provided under this alternative.
10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 10-7
• Incorporate recycled water from EMWD to supply the lake and irrigate landscaping to minimize the use of potable water.
The agricultural uses on site would presumably continue to use primarily recycled water. • Provide development opportunities for municipal, office, professional, and neighborhood retail commercial land uses within the community to support the economic growth of the City and to reduce the reliance of automobile use within the surrounding community.
The no project alternative would not provide any these development opportunities and would not reduce the length of automobile trips in the surrounding community. • Provide a system of public and community facilities within residential neighborhoods to support development in an efficient and timely manner.
None of the public and community amenities would be provided under this alternative. • Provide a development with unified design elements, such as architecture, landscaping, color palette, paving, walls, fencing, signage, and entry treatments.
This alternative would not allow an opportunity to provide any such design elements as the project would not be implemented.
• Develop an environment that is visually attractive, efficient, and effectively organized, which includes a pleasing landscape palette.
No new landscaping of any kind or any developed environment would be provided under this alternative.
• Integrate the project with the character of the surrounding community and establish development that results in logical, coordinated growth. • Establish a circulation system that meets projected traffic volumes and accommodates a variety of transportation modes and encourages alternatives to automobile use within the community.
The no project alternative does not provide circulation improvements or encourage alternative transportation modes.
10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 10-8
10.2.2 Existing General Plan Designation Alternative
Project Description
As shown on Figure 5.1-3, General Plan Comparison vs. Proposed Specific Plan, existing General Plan designations establish 136.5 acres of low density residential and 239.5 acres of medium density residential. This would allow for a maximum of 2,390 medium density dwellings (10 du/ac maximum) and up to 682 low density dwellings (5 du/ac maximum) for a total of 3,072 dwelling units under the existing General Plan. This compares with the proposed project which would result in 657 medium density dwellings and 359 low density dwellings for a total of 1,016 dwellings. Therefore, this alternative could result in more than three times the number of dwellings proposed under the project. This alternative would also provide 54.4 acres of commercial uses along Sanderson Avenue as opposed to a combined 49 acres of commercial and mixed uses under the project. This alternative results in fewer acres of open space/parks (44.7 as opposed to 110.5 under the project) and does not provide for a future high school on site.
Environmental Analysis
Landform Alteration and Aesthetics
This alternative would represent a similar change in urban land use as it would also appear as a developed suburban neighborhood in the western San Jacinto Valley. However, it does not provide as many transitions between land uses and would not guarantee the extensive open space amenities, street landscaping and landscaped trails that provide a visual buffer between land uses. Therefore, this alternative is viewed as slightly inferior to the project, but it is expected that significant visual impacts could be mitigated.
Agricultural Resources
This alternative would be similar to the proposed project in that it would eliminate agricultural land use from the project site.
Biological Resources
This alternative would result in similar impacts as the proposed project as it would eliminate existing biological resources on site. This project alternative does not provide for fewer impacts to biological resources compared to the proposed project.
10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 10-9
Geology and Soils
Similar impacts related to seismic hazards would occur under this project alternative. It is anticipated that similar mitigation measures would be imposed and similar to the proposed project, result in all significant impacts being mitigated.
Cultural Resources
Because the presence of undiscovered cultural resources is unknown for both this and the proposed project alternative, risk of significant impacts would be the same as the proposed project. It is anticipated that similar mitigation measures would be imposed as for the proposed project which would result in all significant impacts being mitigated.
Paleontological Resources
Because the presence of paleontological resources is unknown for both this and the proposed project alternative, risk of significant impacts would be the same as the proposed project. It is anticipated that similar mitigation measures would be imposed and similar to the proposed project, result in all significant impacts being mitigated.
Water Resources and Water Quality
Similar water quality impacts would result under this alternative as described for the proposed project. The project site would likely be susceptible to the same flooding and groundwater hazards as outlined for the proposed project. It is anticipated that application of mitigation measures such as those required of the proposed project would have similar impact reducing effects for this alternative.
Transportation, Circulation and Access
Due to the increase in the number of dwelling units, the existing General Plan land use scenario would result in higher traffic volumes from a greater number of residents and more intensive construction phase as compared to the proposed project. Therefore, there is no guarantee that this alternative could mitigate all significant traffic impacts and is therefore viewed as inferior to the proposed project.
Air Quality
Due to three times more dwelling units allowed under this alternative, the existing General Plan land use scenario would result in higher traffic volumes and result in higher air quality impacts compared to the proposed project. Also, the application of architectural coatings would contribute higher overall VOC emissions and would be expected to exceed the daily threshold
10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 10-10
for a greater number of days. Therefore, this alternative is viewed as environmentally inferior to the project due to anticipated greater air quality impacts.
Noise
Although similar noise levels would be expected, due to the increase in number of dwelling units, the length of the construction period is likely to be longer under this alternative. Also, the increased traffic volumes associated with the greater number of dwellings can be expected to result in higher noise levels on surrounding roadways as compared to the project. Therefore, this alternative is viewed as environmentally inferior to the project due to anticipated greater noise impacts.
Public Services and Utilities
Due to the more intensive land use anticipated with this alternative, additional new residents would likely result in increased demand on public utilities and services including police, fire, water, wastewater, solid waste disposal, etc. While it is assumed that an increase in demand for these services could be off-set by mitigation, a greater impact to public services and utilities would likely result from the proposed alternative.
Hazards/Risk of Upset
Similar hazards would result under this alternative as anticipated for the proposed project.
Hazardous materials would need to be disposed of and any remaining soil hazards remediated.
Further, hazards associated with former cattle raising areas would be the same type as anticipated for the proposed project.
Relationship to Project Objectives
The Existing Zoning/General Plan Designation alternative WOULD meet the following project objectives:
• Provide drought-tolerant and water-efficient landscaping for the community. • Consider topographic, geologic, hydrologic, and environmental opportunities and constraints to create a design that safely accommodates seismic and hydrologic hazards. • Reinforce the community identity of the project through control of project design elements such as architecture, landscaping, color palette, paving, walls, fencing, signage and entry treatments.
• Develop an environment that is visually attractive, efficient, and effectively organized, which includes a pleasing landscape palette.
10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 10-11
• Integrate the project with the character of the surrounding community and establish development that results in logical, coordinated growth. • Provide a system of public and community facilities within residential neighborhoods to support development in an efficient and timely manner.
• Provide a development with unified design elements, such as architecture, landscaping, color palette, paving, walls, fencing, signage, and entry treatments.
All of the above objectives would likely be required under a different Specific Plan for the project site, while utilizing all of the General Plan designations.
This alternative would NOT meet the following project objectives (explanations follow each objective and have been italicized):
• Provide for the establishment of a master-planned community through implementation of a Specific Plan, consisting of a maximum of 1,329 dwelling units, which is consistent with the scale and character of planned uses in surrounding areas.
Part of this objective would be met in that the City requires a Specific Plan to be prepared for projects over 100 acres. However, the number of dwelling units would be much greater than what is proposed for the project.
• Provide a variety of detached single-family lot sizes in traditional subdivision layouts that are marketable within the evolving economic and demographic profile of the City of San Jacinto.
This alternative could result in only two housing types that utilize the maximum allowable density range.
• Provide public and private recreational amenities for the benefit of residents of this community and of the City of San Jacinto.
The General Plan allows for a variety of recreational uses under the Open Space Recreation designation, but this alternative would not necessarily result in such uses being available to the public.
• Incorporate recycled water from EMWD to supply the lake and irrigate landscaping to minimize the use of potable water.
There is no guarantee that this alternative would accommodate a lake. However, it is likely that any landscaping could use recycled water, thus meeting part of this objective.
10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 10-12
• Provide development opportunities for municipal, office, professional, and neighborhood retail commercial land uses within the community to support the economic growth of the City and to reduce the reliance of automobile use within the surrounding community.
This alternative does not allow for development of municipal, office, and professional land uses. • Establish a circulation system that meets projected traffic volumes and accommodates a variety of transportation modes and encourages alternatives to automobile use within the community.
There is no guarantee that the circulation system associated with this alternative could adequately accommodate the projected increase in traffic volumes.
10.2.3 Reduced Density Alternative
Project Description
This project alternative would involve the development of a low density housing tract with approximately 1-acre lots. Due to drainage and infrastructure needs, this alternative would consist of approximately 350 single-family homes (on approximately 350 acres), 41 acres of parks, 27 acres of greenbelts, 14 acres of drainage basin, 18 acres of lake surfaces, 18 acres of roadways and a 3 acre clubhouse. Due to the existing nature of the site topography, this project alternative would be prepared, graded and designed in a similar fashion as the proposed project.
Environmental Analysis
Landform Alteration and Aesthetics
This alternative would represent a similar change in urban land use as the proposed alternative but would be less intense. This alternative would appear as a developed suburban neighborhood in the western San Jacinto Valley in place of the existing agricultural setting.
Agricultural Resources
This alternative would be similar to the proposed project in that it would eliminate agricultural land use from the project site. This project alternative does not provide for reduced impacts to agricultural resources because it proposes development over the entire site.
Biological Resources
This alternative would result in similar impacts as the proposed project. All significant impacts of the project are mitigated through project-specific mitigation, and therefore the alternative does
10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 10-13
not offer mitigation that is necessary to reduce significant impacts to less than significant levels.
The project's relationship with the Western Riverside MSHCP would be similar as described for the proposed project.
Geology and Soils
Similar impacts related to seismic hazards would occur under this project alternative. It is anticipated that similar mitigation measures would be imposed and similar to the proposed project, result in all significant impacts being mitigated.
Cultural Resources
Because the presence of undiscovered cultural resources is unknown for both this and the proposed project alternative, risk of significant impacts would be the same as the proposed project. It is anticipated that similar mitigation measures would be imposed as for the proposed project which would result in all significant impacts being mitigated.
Paleontological Resources
Because the presence of paleontological resources is unknown for both this and the proposed project alternative, risk of significant impacts would be the same as the proposed project. It is anticipated that similar mitigation measures would be imposed and would similarly result in all significant impacts being mitigated.
Water Resources and Water Quality
Similar water quality impacts would result under this alternative as described for the proposed project. The project site would likely be susceptible to the same flooding and groundwater hazards as outlined for the proposed project. It is anticipated that application of mitigation measures such as those required of the proposed project would have similar impact reducing effects for this alternative. However, this alternative is not inherently less impactive from a drainage/run-off and urban pollutant perspective than the proposed project due to less intensity of land use. Therefore, it is likely that this project alternative would reduce potential water quality impacts compared to the proposed project.
Transportation, Circulation and Access
Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would likely necessitate reconfiguration of several intersections; however, certain mitigation measures (intersection improvements) may not be necessary due to the elimination of the school, commercial/mixed uses and 666 fewer housing units as compared with the project. While directional splits of traffic for this alternative would be
10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 10-14
different than those of the proposed project, this alternative would result in substantially less traffic to surrounding roadways.
Air Quality
Because of the South Coast Air Basin's non-attainment status for several criteria pollutants, air quality impacts, although less in quantity, would still occur under this reduced density scenario.
Therefore, this alternative would not substantially reduce impacts to air quality due to fewer mobile source emissions. Short term air quality impacts related to application of architectural coatings could be substantially reduced under this alternative. However, impacts to air quality would likely remain at a significant, unmitigable level due to contribution of long term vehicular emissions.
Noise
The reduction in traffic under this alternative would reduce overall traffic noise anticipated on Sanderson Avenue, Odell Avenue and other nearby streets. While the project itself wouldn't generate as much traffic-producing noise, it is likely that homes along both internal and external roadways would require analysis of anticipated noise levels at property lines, etc. It is therefore assumed that similar noise impacts to future property owners would occur and mitigation measures in the form of set-backs and noise attenuation walls would be necessary to mitigate any noise impact.
Public Services and Utilities
The demand on public facilities such as water and sewer service would be less under this alternative due to a smaller user group at the site. However, no significant impacts were identified for public services and facilities, and therefore, this alternative does not offer any substantial benefits in terms of impact reduction.
Hazards/Risk of Upset
Similar hazards would result under this alternative as anticipated for the proposed project.
Hazardous materials would need to be disposed of and any remaining soil hazards remediated.
Further, hazards associated with existing cattle raising areas would be the same type as anticipated for the proposed project.
Relationship to Project Objectives
The Reduced Density Alternative WOULD meet the following project objectives:
10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 10-15
• Consider topographic, geologic, hydrologic, and environmental opportunities and constraints to create a design which safely accommodates seismic and hydrologic hazards.
• Develop an environment that is visually attractive, efficient, and effectively organized, which includes a pleasing landscape palette.
• Integrate the project with the character of the surrounding community and establish development that results in logical, coordinated growth. • Establish a circulation system that meets projected traffic volumes and accommodates a variety of transportation modes.
• Provide drought-tolerant and water-efficient landscaping for the community. • Incorporate recycled water from EMWD to supply the lake and irrigate landscaping to minimize the use of potable water.
• Provide public and private recreational amenities for the benefit of residents of this community and of the City of San Jacinto.
• Provide a system of public and community facilities within residential neighborhoods to support development in an efficient and timely manner.
• Provide a development with unified design elements, such as architecture, landscaping, color palette, paving, walls, fencing, signage, and entry treatments.
This alternative would NOT meet the following project objectives:
• Provide for the establishment of a master-planned community through implementation of a Specific Plan, consisting of a maximum of 1,329 dwelling units, which is consistent with the scale and character of planned uses in surrounding areas.
Part of this objective would be met in that the City requires a Specific Plan to be prepared for projects over 100 acres. However, the number of dwelling units would be much lower than what is proposed for the project.
• Implement housing-type diversity by providing a variety of detached single-family lot sizes in traditional and non-traditional subdivision layouts that offer a wide range of affordability to meet the changing economic and demographic profile of the City of San Jacinto.
This alternative would not meet this objective in that only one housing type would be provided.
10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 10-16
• Provide development opportunities for municipal, office, professional, and neighborhood retail commercial land uses within the community to support the economic growth of the City and to reduce the reliance of automobile use within the surrounding community.
This alternative would not meet any of these objectives in that it would not provide any municipal, office, professional or retail commercial land uses.
10.3 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative is provided in Table 10.0-1, Alternatives Summary. The matrix also indicates whether the alternative would be feasible in terms of meeting the project objectives as defined in Section
3.0, Project Description, of this EIR.
Table 10.0-1
Alternatives Summary
Environmental
Issue Proposed Project
No Project/No
Development
Existing General Plan
Designation Reduced Density
Landform
Alteration/
Aesthetics
Mitigable Impacts Reduced impacts due to
lack of changed aesthetic
nature
Similar, but does not
provide as many
transitions between land
uses
Similar
Agricultural
Resources
Unmitigable Impacts No Impact Similar Similar
Biological
Resources
Mitigable Impacts No Impact Similar Similar
Geology and Soils Mitigable Impacts No Impact Similar Similar Cultural Resources Mitigable Impacts No Impact Similar Similar Paleontological
Resources
Mitigable Impacts No Impact Similar Similar
Water Quality/
Hydrology
Mitigable Impacts No Impact Similar Similar but less
impervious surface
due to less intensity
of land use.
Transportation/
Circulation/Access
Mitigable Project Impacts
Unmitigable Cumulative
Impacts
No traffic impacts, but
would not facilitate City's
goal of installing
infrastructure in western
San Jacinto
Similar, but would result
in higher traffic volumes
that may not be
completely mitigated.
Less impacts due to
less overall trips
Air Quality Unmitigable Impacts No Impact Greater Impacts Less impacts but likely still significant
and unmitigable
due to nonattainment status of
basin
Noise Mitigable Impacts No Impact Greater Impacts Similar
10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Table 10.0-1 (continued)
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 10-17
Environmental
Issue Proposed Project
No Project/No
Development
Existing General Plan
Designation Reduced Density
Public
Services/Utilities
Mitigable Impacts No Impact Similar, but water use
and other utility use
would be much higher
under this alternative
Less impacts due to
less demand for
services
Hazards/Risk of
Upset
Mitigable Impacts No Impact Similar Similar
Meets Most Project
Objectives?
Yes No No No
Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative, other than the No Project Alternative, be identified in an EIR. As shown in Table 10.0-1, although the Reduced Density Alternative does not meet most of the project objectives, it would reduce traffic, noise, public services/utilities and air quality impacts when compared to the proposed project. Consequently, this alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative. That said, as analyzed in this chapter, no substantial advantages are offered by the Reduced Density Alternative when compared to the proposed project since the project would mitigate all significant public services/utilities and noise impacts to less than significant levels. All other impacts associated with the Reduced Density Alternative would be similar to the proposed project, and would require a similar level of mitigation. As with the proposed project, the Reduced Density Alternative would contribute pollutants to the air basin which is currently in non-attainment status, therefore significant, unmitigable air quality impacts would remain. Furthermore the environmentally superior alternative would also contribute to a significant cumulative traffic impact if the MCP and SR-79 improvement projects are not in place when the project is completed.
10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 10-18
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 11-1
SECTION 11.0
REFERENCES/ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
REFERENCES UTILIZED THROUGHOUT EIR
14 CCR 15000 et seq. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.
C & V Consulting, Inc. 2009. Tentative Tract No. 36188 Villages of San Jacinto, City of San Jacinto, County of Riverside, California. February.
California Public Resources Code. Section 21000 et seq. Division 13: Environmental Quality.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
T & B Planning Consultants. 2009. Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan. February.
LAND USE, PLANNING, AND ZONING
City of San Jacinto. 1985. City of San Jacinto General Plan.
City of San Jacinto. 2003. Draft City of San Jacinto General Plan Land Use Element.
City of San Jacinto. 2005. Tentative/New Development Map. Accessed June 8, 2005. http://www.ci.san-jacinto.ca.us/pdf_2003/Tentative_maps2004.pdf City of San Jacinto. 2006. City of San Jacinto General Plan. Updated version. Adopted on May 4, 2006.
City of San Jacinto. City of San Jacinto Zoning Ordinance.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. 2004. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 10- Year Strategic Plan and Transportation Improvement Program Development Guidelines, p. 2. June.
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 2003. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Adopted August 1, 2003; updated version adopted June 1, 2007.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
City of San Jacinto. 2005. Tentative/New Development Map. Accessed June 8, 2005. http://www.ci.san-jacinto.ca.us/pdf_2003/Tentative_maps2004.pdf Clayton, D. Personal communication from D. Clayton (City of San Jacinto).
11.0 REFERENCES/ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 11-2
County of Riverside. 2004. Transportation and Land Management Agency. Conserved Lands within Western Riverside County Map. Accessed November 24, 2004. www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/gis/maps/conserved_lands
State of California. 1997. California Agricultural Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA) Model Instruction Manual. Department of Conservation. Office of Land Conservation.
State of California. 2006. Important Farmland Database – 2006. Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Accessed 2009 at www.conservation.ca.gov U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1971. Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area, California.
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Dudek and Associates. 2005. Biological Resources Technical Report – Villages of San Jacinto.
August.
Gradd, K. 2005. Email from K. Gradd (Riverside Regional Conservation Authority), April 26, 2005.
Riverside County. 2003. Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. June 17.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
ASM Affiliates. 2004. Cultural Resources Study for the Villages of San Jacinto Project.
December.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Leighton and Associates. 2004. Fault Investigation for the Villages of San Jacinto Project.
March 31.
Leighton and Associates. 2005. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the Villages of San Jacinto Project. February 28.
Leighton and Associates. 2005. Response to Riverside County Building and Safety Department Review Comments, County Geologic Report No. 1175, Fault Investigation, Tenaya TTM 34081 (Formerly the Villages), City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California.
August 31.
11.0 REFERENCES/ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 11-3
Leighton and Associates. 2006. Response to Riverside County Building and Safety Department Review Comments, County Geologic Report No. 1175, Fault Investigation, Tenaya TTM 34081, City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. June 30.
Leighton and Associates. 2006. Response to Riverside County Building and Safety Department Review Comments #3, County Geologic Report No. 1175, Fault Investigation, Tenaya TTM 34081, City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. October 31.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Riverside County. 2003. General Plan Update. Open Space Element, pp. OS-36 to OS-37 and Figure OS-8.
WATER QUALITY AND HYDROLOGY
33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act).
City-Data.com. 2009. Accessed April 30, 2009.
www.city-data.com/city/San-Jacinto-California.html
JLC Engineering & Consulting Inc. 2009. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for the Villages of San Jacinto. February 23.
Leighton. 2006. Personal communication from Leighton stating that the project would not impact regional groundwater, December 15, 2006.
Leighton and Associates. 2005. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the Villages of San Jacinto Project. February 28.
Pacific Aquascape, Inc. 2009. Lake Preliminary Design Report. March.
RBF Consulting. 2006. Preliminary Drainage Study for Tentative Tract Map 34081. May.
RBF Consulting. 2006. Phase 1 and 2 Preliminary Drainage Study for Tentative Tract Map 34081. August.
RBF Consulting. 2006. Floodplain resource information. Letter from RBF Consulting to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, September 7.
RBF Consulting. 2007. Summary Preliminary Drainage Analysis for TTM34081 Phases 1, 1A, 1B and 1C. January 15.
11.0 REFERENCES/ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 11-4
RCFC & WCD (Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District). 2006.
Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Design Handbook. July 21.
State of California, Santa Ana RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board). 1995. Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin.
State of California, Santa Ana RWQCB. 2003. California 2002 303(d) list. Approved by the U.S.
EPA on July 2003.
State of California, Santa Ana RWQCB. 2004. Resolution Amending the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin to Incorporate Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Lake Elsinore·and Canyon Lake.
T & B Planning Consultants. 2009. Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan Drainage Plan.
Prepared with assistance from JLC Engineering. February.
TRANSPORTATION, CIRCULATION, AND ACCESS
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. 2004. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 10-Year Strategic Plan.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. 2004. Draft Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Calculation Handbook.
Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2005. Villages of San Jacinto Reduced Traffic Impact Letter. May 27.
Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2005. Villages of San Jacinto Traffic Impact Analysis. September 26.
Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2006. Villages of San Jacinto Alternate Tenaya Traffic Analysis due to the High School Alternative Land Use Letter. January 5.
Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2006. Villages of San Jacinto Tenaya Trip Generation Comparison.
March 9.
AIR QUALITY
CAIT (Climate Analysis Indicators Tool) Version 6.0. 2009. Total GHG Emissions in 2005 Table. World Resources Institute. Washington, DC.
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January.
11.0 REFERENCES/ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 11-5
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April.
CARB. 2007. California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit.
November 16.
CARB. 2008. Scoping Plan To Achieve the Goals of AB 32. December 11. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/facts/scoping_plan_fs.pdf
CARB, California Climate Action Registry, ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability, and The Climate Registry. 2008. Local Government Operations Protocol. September.
Accessed May 14, 2009.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/protocols/localgov/pubs/final_lgo_protocol_2008-09-25.pdf CARB. 2008. Climate Action Scoping Plan – A Framework for Change. December.
CARB. “Area Designations (Activities and Maps).” Accessed March 30, 2009. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm
CARB. 2009. “Air Quality Data Statistics.”
http://arb.ca.gov/adam
CARB. 2009. “Scoping Plan Measures Implementation Timeline.” May. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/meetings/012909/sp_measures_implementation_ timeline.pdf
California Department of Finance. 2009. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2008 and 2009. Sacramento, California, May.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/2008- 09/documents/E-1%202009%20Internet%20Version.xls.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation, Institute of Transportation Studies [ITS]). 1998. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol User Workbook. June.
California Employment Development Department. 2009. "Labor Market Info – Local Profile." Accessed July 30, 2009 at:
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/localAreaProQSSelection.asp? menuChoice=localAreaPro (data for San Jacinto, 2009).
CAT (California Climate Action Team). 2006. Final 2006 Climate Action Team Report to the Governor and Legislature. Sacramento, CA. April 3.
11.0 REFERENCES/ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 11-6
CCAR (California Climate Action Registry). 2009. General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Version 3.1. January. http://climateregistry.org/resources/docs/protocols/grp/ GRP_V3_April2008_FINAL.pdf CCCC (California Climate Change Center). 2006. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California, CEC-500-2006-077, Sacramento, CA. July.
CEC (California Energy Commission). 2006. Refining Estimates of Water Related Energy Use in California.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500-2006-118/CEC-500-2006- 118.PDF
City-Data.com. Accessed June 6, 2005.
www.city-data.com/city/San-Jacinto-California.html
DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2006. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Management of California Water Resources, Sacramento, CA. July.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle (EPA420-F-05-004). EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
EPA. 2007. Climate Change—Science: State of Knowledge. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/ stateofknowledge.html EPA. 2008a. Glossary of Climate Change Terms.
http://www.epa.gov /climatechange/glossary.html#Climate_change.
EPA. 2008b. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions, USEPA #430-R-08-005, 2008.
EPA. “Region 9: Air Programs, Air Quality Maps.” Accessed July 7, 2008. http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/maps/maps_top.html
EPA. 2009. “AirData : Access to Air Pollution Data.”
http://epa.gov/air/data
Iowa State University, Department of Forestry. Accessed June 16, 2005. http://www.forestry.iastate.edu/res/odor_mitigation.html IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group III). 2001. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) Summary for Policy Makers. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf
11.0 REFERENCES/ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 11-7
IPCC WGI (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group I). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf Johnson, S. 2007. Letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger from Stephen L. Johnson.
December 19.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/20071219-slj.pdf
Jones & Stokes. 2007. Software User's Guide: URBEMIS 2007 for Windows. Accessed November.
http://www.urbemis.com
Kiparsky, M., and P. Gleick. July 2003. Climate Change and California Water Resources:
A Survey and Summary of the Literature. Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security. Oakland, California.
http://www.pacinst.org/reports/climate_change_and_california_water_resources.pdf NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 2008. Understanding and Responding to Climate Change: Highlights of National Academies Reports.
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate-change-final.pdf NCDC (National Climatic Data Center). 2008. Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions.
Asheville, N.C.
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Office of the California Attorney General. 2008. The California Environmental Quality Act Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. December. http://www.ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2008. Technical Advisory – CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.
Parmesan, C., and H. Galbraith. 2004. Observed Ecological Impacts of Climate Change in North America. Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
RBF Consulting. 2005. “The Villages of San Jacinto Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Study.” August.
Riverside County. www.co.riverside.ca.us
Riverside County Integrated Project. www.rcip.org
11.0 REFERENCES/ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 11-8
Riverside County. Economic Development Agency. www.rivcoeda.org Riverside County Integrated Project. www.rcip.org
SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2004. "Growth Forecasts for 2004 Regional Transportation Plan."
http://www.scag.ca.gov/forecast/downloads/2004GF.xls
SCAG. 2008. "Adopted 2008 RTP Growth Forecasts by City." http://www.scag.ca.gov/forecast/downloads/excel/RTP07_CityLevel.xls SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. (Table A9-11-A.) November. Revised March 2009. Available at http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/signthres.pdf
SCAQMD. 2005. June 9.
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/paintguide.html
SCAQMD. 2007. Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. June. http://aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/aqmp/Chapter_3.pdf
SCAQMD. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, revised July 2008.
SCAQMD. 2009 “Historical Data by Year.” Accessed February 19, 2009. http://aqmd.gov/smog/historicaldata.htm
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2009. Status of Ratification. Accessed February 2009.
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2009. Villages of San Jacinto Traffic Impact Analysis. April 24.
U.S. Supreme Court (Supreme Court of the United States). 2007. Massachusetts et al. v.
Environmental Protection Agency et al., Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Argued November 29, 2006; decided April 2, 2007.
Available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf NOISE
City of San Jacinto. 2006. Draft City of San Jacinto General Plan: Noise Element. January.
City of San Jacinto. 2008. Noise ordinance. San Jacinto Municipal Code; Chapter 8.40: Noise Control.
11.0 REFERENCES/ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 11-9
Dudek and Associates. 2006. Noise Models for the Villages of San Jacinto Project. November.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2004. Traffic Noise Model (TNM). Version 2.5.
FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May.
Sato, P. 2005. Personal communication from P. Sato (Urban Crossroads), October 26, 2005.
Urban Crossroads. 2005. Villages of San Jacinto Traffic Impact Analysis. September 26.
Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2006. Villages of San Jacinto Tenaya Trip Generation Comparison.
March 9.
Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2009. Villages of San Jacinto Traffic Impact Analysis. April 24.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Arthur, J. 2004. Email from J. Arthur (San Jacinto Unified School District), November 15, 2004.
Chavez, Tim. Personal communication (San Jacinto Fire Captain, Station No. 78), June 25, 2009.
City of San Jacinto. 2004. Residential Development School Fee Justification Study for San Jacinto Unified School District. Prepared by David Taussig & Associates.
City of San Jacinto. 2005. Draft Development Impact Fee Justification Study City of San Jacinto.
Prepared by David Taussig & Associates.
CIWMB (California Integrated Waste Management Board) 2009. Accessed May 6, 2009. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov
Eastern Municipal Water District. 2004. Water Supply Assessment Report Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan.
Eastern Municipal Water District. Wastewater Treatment Hemet/San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Accessed May 5, 2009.
http://www.emwd.org/news/Insights/insights_hemet-san_jacinto.pdf Eastern Municipal Water District. Accessed May 5, 2009. http://www.emwd.org
11.0 REFERENCES/ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 11-10
Eastern Municipal Water District. 2009. Letter affirming that demand is expected to remain within the limits of the District’s projected regional demand as outlined in the December 15, 2004 Water Supply Assessment. May 11, 2009.
Goepp, S. Personal communication from S. Goepp (Valley Wide Park and Recreation District), December 10, 2004.
Holts, Tim. Personal communication (San Jacinto Community Development & Planning), June 25, 2009.
JLC Engineering & Consulting Inc. 2009. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study for the Villages of San Jacinto. February 23.
Ma, S. Telephone call from S. Ma (Riverside County Waste Management District), December 3, 2004.
RBF Consulting. November 2005. Villages of San Jacinto Water, Wastewater and Irrigation Study.
RBF Consulting. 2006. Preliminary Drainage Analysis for TTM 34081. May.
RBF Consulting. 2006. Preliminary Drainage Analysis for Phases 1, 1A, 1B and 1C.
December 12.
Riverside County. 2003. Lamb Canyon Landfill Expansion Project Environmental Assessment No. 38691. Riverside County Waste Management Department.
San Jacinto Unified School District. Accessed May 5, 2009. http://www.sanjacinto.k12.ca.us/
State of California. 2004. “California Integrated Waste Management District (CIWMD).
Jurisdiction Diversion Rate Summary.” Accessed December 3, 2004 http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov
State of California, California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2003. Resolution 2003-504 (Revised), Revised Full Solid Waste Facilities Permit (Disposal Facility) for the Lamb Canyon Landfill, Riverside County. Riverside County Waste Management Department.
Tonseth, Brian. Personal communication (San Jacinto Police Department), June 25, 2009.
11.0 REFERENCES/ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 11-11
HAZARDS/RISK OF UPSET
Gradient Engineers. 2002. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report for Parcels 431-020- 005, 431-020-006 and 431-020-015. October 10.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
City of San Jacinto. 2004. Current Tentative Maps. October.
City of San Jacinto. Fiscal Year 2004 Capital Projects Map.
Eastern Municipal Water District. 2005. MND for the SJVRWRF Tertiary Treatment Upgrade.
March 25.
Riverside County Transportation Commission. Accessed April 5, 2005. www.rctc.org
Urban Crossroads. 2004. Traffic Analysis for Villages of San Jacinto Project based on October 2004 Current Tentative Maps. March.
EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Leighton and Associates. 2004. Fault Investigation for the Villages of San Jacinto Project.
March 31.
Riverside County. 2003. General Plan Update. Open Space Element, p. OS-26 and Figure OS-5.
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
Riverside County. 2003. General Plan Update. Multipurpose Open Space Element.
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
N/A
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
N/A
11.0 REFERENCES/ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 11-12
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 12-1
SECTION 12.0
LIST OF PREPARERS
12.1 LEAD AGENCY – CITY OF SAN JACINTO
Planning Department
Tim Hults, Director of Community Development
David Leonard, Project Planner
Engineering Department
Habib Matlaugh, Engineer
Eric Skaugset, P.E., Deputy City Engineer
12.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS/EIR PREPARATION –
DUDEK
Project Management
Sarah Lozano, M.R.P., A.I.C.P., City and Regional Planning Joe Monaco, M.S., A.I.C.P., City Planning
Environmental Coordinator
Jon Berg, B.S., Environmental Planning and Interpretation
GIS/CADD
Lesley Terry, B.S., City and Regional Planning
Word Processing
Tonette Foster, B.S., Business Management
Julie Corrales
Editing
Cynthia Cohen, M.A., English
Land Use, Planning, and Zoning
April Verbanac, B.S., Environmental Studies
David Merriman, B.A., Geography and Environmental Planning Agricultural Resources
April Verbanac, B.S., Environmental Studies
David Merriman, B.A., Geography and Environmental Planning
12.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 12-2
Landform Alteration and Aesthetics
Jonathan Leech, M.S., A.I.C.P., Environmental Studies/Geology David Merriman, B.A., Geography and Environmental Planning Biological Resources
Michelle Balk, M.S., Biology/Ecology
Sarah Lozano, M.R.P., A.I.C.P., City and Regional Planning Cultural Resources
Sarah Lozano, M.R.P., A.I.C.P., City and Regional Planning Geology and Soils
Sarah Lozano, M.R.P., A.I.C.P., City and Regional Planning Paleontological Resources
Sarah Lozano, M.R.P., A.I.C.P., City and Regional Planning Water Resources and Water Quality
Sarah Lozano, M.R.P., City and Regional Planning
David Hochart, B.S., Environmental Science
David Merriman, B.A., Geography and Environmental Planning Transportation, Circulation and Access
Jonathan Leech, B.S., A.I.C.P., Environmental Studies/Geology Sarah Lozano, M.R.P., A.I.C.P., City and Regional Planning April Verbanac, B.S., Environmental Studies
David Merriman, B.A., Geography and Environmental Planning Air Quality
Troy White, B.S., Environmental Science
Dave Deckman, M.S., Ecology
Noise
Jonathan Leech, B.S., A.I.C.P., Environmental Studies/Geology Mike Komula, M.S., Acoustical Studies
Public Services and Utilities
April Verbanac, B.S., Environmental Studies
David Hochart, B.S., Environmental Science
David Merriman, B.A., Geography and Environmental Planning
12.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 12-3
Hazards/Risk of Upset
Sarah Lozano, M.R.P., A.I.C.P., City and Regional Planning Cumulative Impacts
Sarah Lozano, M.R.P., A.I.C.P., City and Regional Planning David Merriman, B.A., Geography and Environmental Planning Growth Inducing Impacts
Sarah Lozano, M.R.P., A.I.C.P., City and Regional Planning Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
Sarah Lozano, M.R.P., A.I.C.P., City and Regional Planning Effects Found Not Significant
Sarah Lozano, M.R.P., A.I.C.P., City and Regional Planning David Merriman, B.A., Geography and Environmental Planning Project Alternatives
Sarah Lozano, M.R.P., A.I.C.P., City and Regional Planning David Hochart, B.S., Environmental Science
David Merriman, B.A., Geography and Environmental Planning
12.3 TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARATION
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model, Dudek and Associates (June 2005)
April Verbanac, B.S., Environmental Studies
Biological Resources Technical Report, Dudek and Associates (August 2005) Michelle Balk, M.S., Biology/Ecology
Megan Enright, B.S., Biology
Anita Hayworth, Ph.D., Ecology
Jeff Priest, B.S., Biology
Cultural Resources Technical Report, ASM Affiliates (March 2005) Ken Moslak, B.S.
John Cook, B.A.
Sinead Ni Ghabhláin, Ph.D.
Geotechnical Investigation, Leighton and Associates (March 2004, March 2005) Robert Riha, C.E.G.
Adam Terronez, R.C.E.
12.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Villages of San Jacinto EIR 4307-01
August 2009 12-4
Matthew Clarke
David Smith, R.C.E.
Kevin Bryan, R.G., C.E.G.
Avi Schwartz
Preliminary Drainage/Water Quality Report, RBF (January 2005) Mike Tylman, P.E.
David Morgan
Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Study, JLC Engineering & Consulting Inc. (February 2009)
Joseph L. Castaneda, R.C.E.
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, JLC Engineering & Consulting Inc. (February 2009)
Joseph L. Castaneda, R.C.E.
Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads (May 24, 2005, April 24, 2009) Scott Sato, P.E.
Carleton Waters, P.E.
Philip Nitollama, E.I.T.
John Kain, A.I.C.P.
Noise Models, Dudek and Associates (June 2005)
Mike Komula, M.S., Acoustical Analysis
Jonathan Leech, B.S., A.I.C.P., Environmental Studies/Geology Air Quality Models, Dudek and Associates (June 2005, with update December 2006 and May 2009)
Troy White, B.S., Environmental Science
Dave Deckman, M.S., Ecology
Nicole Peacock, B.S., P.E., Civil and Environmental Engineering Water, Wastewater and Irrigation Study, RBF (August 18, 2005) Mike Tylman, P.E.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Gradient Engineers (October 10, 2002) Kristen Stout, R.E.A.
Thomas Mills, R.G., R.E.A. II
Environmental Consulting
& Management
+1.800.322.ROUX
rouxinc.com
Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment
________________________________
North Sanderson Avenue
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 432-030-
006, 432-030-010, and 432-030-011
San Jacinto, California
October 25, 2021
Prepared for:
Shea Properties Management Company, Inc.
Prepared by:
Roux Associates, Inc.
5150 E. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450
Long Beach, California, 90804
2217.0025L103/R
2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | i Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................iii
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope of Services ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Standard of Care........................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................. 2
1.5 User Reliance ............................................................................................................................... 4
2. Site Description....................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Site Location and Description ....................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Vicinity General Characteristics.................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Past Use of the Site ...................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Physical Setting ............................................................................................................................ 6
3. Sources of Information ........................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Historical Sources ......................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Site Reconnaissance .................................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Regulatory Agencies..................................................................................................................... 8
3.3.1 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)............................................ 10
3.4 Government Databases.............................................................................................................. 10
3.5 User Provided Information .......................................................................................................... 11
3.5.1 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations ........................................................ 11
3.5.2 Specialized Knowledge..................................................................................................... 11
3.5.3 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues ................................................................. 11
3.5.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information .......................................... 11
3.5.5 Obvious Indicators of the Presence or Likely Presence of Contamination of the Site ..... 11
3.6 Interviews.................................................................................................................................... 11
4. Site History ........................................................................................................................................... 12
4.1 Site History.................................................................................................................................. 12
5. Current Site Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 15
5.1 Site Reconnaissance .................................................................................................................. 15
5.2 Phase I ESA Observations ......................................................................................................... 15
5.2.1 Drums (55 Gallons or Larger) ........................................................................................... 16
5.2.2 Electrical Transformers ..................................................................................................... 16
5.2.3 Former Agricultural Applied Pesticide Area ...................................................................... 17
5.2.4 Storm Water Detention Pond ............................................................................................ 17
5.2.5 Wells ................................................................................................................................. 17
5.3 Vapor Intrusion............................................................................................................................ 17
6. Summary of Key Previous Investigations............................................................................................. 18
6.1 Site Investigation (ATC, 2000).................................................................................................... 18
6.2 Well Installation and Vapor Extraction Testing (Stratus, 2001).................................................. 18
6.3 Draft Environmental Impact Report (Dudek, 2009) .................................................................... 19
7. Database Records Review ................................................................................................................... 20 Table of Contents (Continued)
2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | ii
7.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources .................................................................................. 20
7.1.1 Site (Target Property)........................................................................................................ 20
7.1.2 Adjoining and Nearby Properties ...................................................................................... 21
7.1.3 Orphan Sites ..................................................................................................................... 21
8. Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 22
8.1 Data Gaps................................................................................................................................... 22
8.2 Recognized Environmental Conditions....................................................................................... 22
8.3 Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions ..................................................................... 23
8.4 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions....................................................................... 23
8.5 Other Environmental Features.................................................................................................... 24
9. References ........................................................................................................................................... 25
10. Signature of Environmental Professional ............................................................................................. 26 Tables
1. Standard Environmental Record Sources (EDR Report) Summary Figures
1. Site Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Site Plan: Former Operations Area
Appendices
A. Glossary of Terms
B. Historical Topographic Maps
C. Historical Aerial Photographs
D. Certified Sanborn Report
E. EDR City Directory Image Report
F. EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck®
G. Photographic Log
H. Pertinent Historical Documentation
2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | iii Executive Summary
Shea Properties Management Company, Inc. (Shea, the User) retained Roux Associates, Inc. (Roux) to perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the property located at west of North Sanderson Avenue, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 432-030-006, 432-030-010, and 432-030-011 (the Site). Roux performed this Phase I ESA in general accordance with the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM E1527-13) in an effort to identify, to the extent feasible, the presence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) with respect to the Site as defined in ASTM E1527-13. Exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 8.1 of this report.
The Site consists of approximately 470 acres bound by North Sanderson Avenue to the east and is located east of Odel Avenue and south of Ramona Boulevard in a rural and agricultural area of San Jacinto, California. No addresses are currently assigned to the Site; however, 870 and 1380 North Sanderson Avenue have previously been used. Based on a review of historical sources, the Site was developed with a residential structure by 1901 with a workshop and two barns added by 1953. By 1949, the northeastern portion of the Site was developed for agricultural use, possibly row crops. Agricultural production extended to the remainder of the Site and remained until approximately 2012. Agricultural features added to the Site include water wells for domestic and irrigation use and small ponds. By 1978, 20 acres on the southeastern portion of the Site were developed with a heifer raising farm including corrals, water cisterns, and covered structures. A large pond (or water reservoir) was added to the southwestern corner of the Site by 1985. The heifer farm remained operational through at least 2006 became inactive by 2009. All the former structures, including all residential and agricultural support structures were demolished by 2012. The Site has since remained inactive and currently consists of vacant graded land with earthen roads.
On August 3, 2021, Roux visually assessed the Site during the site reconnaissance for potential RECs, including, but not limited to, potential underground storage tanks (USTs), aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing equipment, hazardous materials storage or handling areas, containerized or bulk wastes, and visual indications of impacted soil.
Roux also performed a records review in an effort to identify RECs in connection with the Site. This records review addressed the Site and surrounding properties. Roux reviewed commercially available records associated with the Site and nearby properties to assess potential concerns associated with the migration of hazardous substances. The records review also included reasonably ascertainable historical data, which can be helpful in identifying the past uses of the Site and surrounding areas, as it may relate to the environmental condition of the Site.
Roux performed interviews and/or file reviews with various government agencies and other parties with possible knowledge of the Site and surrounding properties in an effort to identify current and past uses of the Site and surrounding areas, as they may relate to the environmental condition of the Site.
ASTM E 1527-13 defines a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) as:
“The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.” 2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | iv A Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (cREC) as:
“A recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting riskbased criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).” And a Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (hREC) as:
“A past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). Before calling the past release a historical recognized environmental condition, the environmental professional must determine whether the past release is a recognized environmental condition at the time the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is conducted (for example, if there has been a change in the regulatory criteria). If the EP considers the past release to be a recognized environmental condition at the time the Phase I ESA is conducted, the condition shall be included in the conclusions section of the report as a recognized environmental condition.”
The term recognized environmental condition is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.
This Executive Summary provides a brief overview of the findings of this Phase I ESA. Although the Executive Summary is an integral part of a report, it does not substitute for reading the entire report or the appended or referenced documents in order to fully understand the findings and potential environmental concerns associated with the Site.
Based on the information obtained through the performance of this ESA, Roux identified the following RECs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Site or adjacent properties. To the extent possible, the locations of the RECs are shown in Figure 2. To avoid confusion, all RECs, cRECs, hRECs, and OEFs are numbered sequentially.
REC 1 – Former Heifer Farm. A southeastern portion of the Site, totaling approximately 20 acres in size, was formerly developed as a heifer raising farm from at least 1978 through 2002. The former heifer farm operations represented a REC due to the possible presence of methane from manure.
REC 2 - Petroleum-Stained Soil. During a reconnaissance of the Site conducted in 2002, petroleumstained soil was observed beneath a diesel aboveground storage tank (AST) located northwest of the reservoir (pond), near the irrigation groundwater well located southwest of the reservoir, and on the floor of the equipment shed, beneath three oil-containing 55-gallon drums. Based on the storage of hazardous substances and petroleum products in uncovered ground areas and evidence of a release, the former chemical storage identified above represented a REC.
2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | v REC 3 - Pond. The Site is equipped with a pond located on the southwestern corner. According to aerial photographs, the pond was added between 1978 and 1985 and was likely used as part of the heifer ranch operations. According to a 2009 Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the reservoir contained reclaimed water from the neighboring San Jacinto Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility related to irrigation for sod farming activities on-Site. It is unknown whether the pond also historically received wastewater from the on-Site ranch operations, was used for agricultural irrigation, or stored water treated with larvicide/repellant for mosquito control. The pond appeared unlined, allowing waters to infiltrate the ground and recharge the aquifer. Based on the historical agricultural use of the Site, the on-Site pond represents a REC.
REC 4 - Former Agricultural Applied Pesticide Area. Based on a review of historical sources, a portion of the Site was developed for agricultural use (row crops) as early as 1949 with increased agricultural development noted from at least 1978 to 2016. No indications of former row crops were observed on the Site. According to the EIR, a portion of the Site was developed as a sod farm from 1997 through at least 2002. Any residual pesticide, herbicide, or fertilizer residue in Site soils associated with sod farming was not identified as an environmental concern based on the removal of shallow soils during sod harvest. Agricultural production prior to 1997 at the Site is not currently known. However, it is likely that agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, were used on-Site historically, and the potential for impacts from agricultural chemicals to on-Site soils is considered a REC.
Roux did not identify known or suspected cRECs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Site or adjacent properties.
Roux identified the following hRECs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Site or adjacent properties.
hREC 5 – Historical Underground Storage Tanks. Westra Dairy Farm, formerly located on-Site at 870 Sanderson Avenue, was identified as having a closed Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) file. According to closure documents, the former on-Site dairy farm (or heifer ranch) had two 1,000-gallon gasoline USTs and one 10,000-gallon gasoline UST located south of a former workshop building in the southern portion of the Site. All three USTs were removed from the Site in December 1999 under direction of the County of Riverside. The tank area was over-excavated and approximately 120 tons of contaminated soil were removed and transported for off-Site disposal. In October 2000, a soil investigation identified total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) impacts below the former tanks to a depth of 35 feet bgs. In May 2001, a vapor extraction well was subsequently in the vicinity of the former tanks and a mobile soil vapor extraction system was used to extract and treat soil vapor. Soil samples do not appear to have been collected following the vapor extraction test. It is unknown if the SVE system operated outside of the 7-hour vapor extraction test as part of remediation for the impacted soils. A “No Further Action” letter was issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SA-RWQCB) to the Westra Family Trust on December 26, 2001.
The closure letter recommended that correction action should be reviewed if land use changes.
According to the “No Further Action” letter, data from this investigation indicates that the residual petroleum hydrocarbons in soil are limited to an area with a 15-foot radius between 15 and 20 feet bgs and did not indicate a significant presence or source of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil. Although a closure document was issued by the SA-RWQCB in 2001, the remaining petroleum hydrocarbonimpacted soil in the former LUST area is considered a hREC. 2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | vi The term recognized environmental condition is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Other environmental features (OEFs) are environmental conditions that do not meet the definition of a REC, but which may warrant mention in a comprehensive Phase I ESA. Based on the subject Phase I ESA, Roux identified the following OEFs. To the extent possible, the locations of the OEFs are shown in Figure 2.
OEF 6 - Septic Systems. According to the EIR, the Site was equipped with two septic systems that historical sources suggest may have been in operation for many decades. The EIR stated the septic systems would be removed along with any residue material in accordance with Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH) protocols. Based on the likely use of these systems for domestic waste only, the existing septic systems represent an OEF.
OEF 7 - Debris. Debris, including old equipment, water heaters, tires, and trash were observed in several piles throughout the site both in the 2002 Phase I ESA and during Site reconnaissance associated with the EIR. Several mounds of soil also were observed across the Site. According to the EIR, the soil piles were generated from on-Site activities and were piled for storage and eventual removal. The EIR recommended a qualified environmental professional be present on-Site during removal of debris piles to assess debris and stockpiled soils and direct disposal accordingly. Based on observations made during the Site reconnaissance, on-Site debris represent an OEF.
OEF 8 - Abandoned Drums. Two abandoned 55-gallon drums were observed during Roux’ Site reconnaissance on August 3, 2021. The drums were observed on a concrete pad in the southeastern portion of the Site in the vicinity of the former heifer ranch area and appeared to contain unknown waste products. Minor to moderate staining was observed in the vicinity of these features. The staining was located on a paved area. It appears that the staining is surficial in nature and thus is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern.
2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 1
1. Introduction
Roux Associates, Inc. (Roux) completed this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the commercial property located at west of North Sanderson Avenue (the Site). The Site location is shown in Figure 1 and the Site and vicinity is shown in Figure 2. Roux performed this Phase I ESA in compliance with the scope and limitations of American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) E1527-13 and the terms and conditions of Roux’ proposal dated August 19, 2021. Roux conducted this Phase I ESA for the benefit of Shea Properties (Shea, the User).
The following sections of this report present our Phase I ESA findings and conclusions. A glossary containing terms and definitions presented in ASTM E1527-13 is included in Appendix A – Glossary of Terms. Other appendices presented at the end of the report include historical topographic maps, historical aerial photographs, regulatory records review documentation, applicable historical records, and personnel qualifications.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Phase I ESA is to identify and report, to the extent feasible, recognized environmental conditions (RECs) with respect to the Site. Performing a Phase I ESA in general compliance with ASTM E 1527-13 may enable a User to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser limitations on Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) liability. That is, the practice that constitutes one of the requirements for “all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice” as defined in 42 USC Section 9601(35) (B).
1.2 Scope of Services
The scope of services for this Phase I ESA included, but was not limited to, the activities listed below. • A review of reasonably ascertainable and practicably reviewable topographic maps, historical aerial photographs, and city directories, if available, to investigate past Site conditions; • A review of specific government lists pursuant to ASTM Standard E 1527-13 regarding environmental activities for the Site and local area properties;
• A review of recorded land title records, building, assessors, and fire department records, for permits, citations, and reports connected to the Site that were reasonably ascertainable, practicably reviewable, and publicly available within reasonable time and cost; • An inspection by an environmental professional to investigate the current use of the Site and to identify environmental concerns including but not limited to, the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products, wastes, underground storage tanks (USTs), aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), or other environmental concerns;
• Interviews with available representatives of the owner of the Site, occupants, and local government officials by an environmental professional; and
• Preparation of this Phase I ESA report.
Roux initiated this Phase I ESA pursuant to receipt of written authorization to proceed on August 26, 2021. 2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 2
1.3 Standard of Care
Roux conducted this Phase I ESA using a defined scope of services considered appropriate and agreed upon by all parties on the date the service was authorized, unless the scope of services or the methods used were later modified, in writing, and accepted by all parties prior to performance. Roux conducted this Phase I ESA in accordance with generally accepted practices in a manner consistent with that level of care exercised by other members of our profession in the same locality and under similar conditions of time and accessibility of improvements and information. No other representations, expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended to be part of this Phase I ESA.
Please note that the scope of services performed in execution of this assessment may not be appropriate to satisfy the needs of other parties. We, therefore, are not responsible for independent conclusions, opinions, or recommendations of others based on our assessment. Furthermore, this Phase I ESA relates to the environmental conditions of the Site and does not address issues raised in transactions such as business risk, purchase of business entities, or interests therein, or of their assets, that may well involve environmental liabilities pertaining to properties previously owned or operated or other offsite liabilities.
Additionally, the findings of this Phase I ESA are based on Roux’ observations, inquiries, and historical research using reasonably ascertainable and practically reviewable information obtained within reasonable time and cost constraints. Roux does not represent that this Phase I ESA is an exhaustive investigation that reflects the findings of all of the information available for the Site, nor is it representative of future Site conditions. If additional information is generated from the Site, it should be provided to Roux so that we may evaluate its impact on our conclusions. As such, activities or episodes that transpire subsequent to this Phase I ESA are not considered in this assessment. It is not intended that a Phase I ESA in accordance with ASTM E1527-13 be an exhaustive assessment of a property nor can it wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with a property.
1.4 Assumptions
This Phase I ESA Report, including the exhibits attached hereto, describes the results of Roux’ investigation to identify the presence of recognized environmental conditions connected with the Site in accordance with ASTM E1527-13, as allowed by and consistent with the regulatory requirements of the All Appropriate Inquiry Rule, 40 CFR Part 312, Amendment to Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquires Under CERCLA, Final Rule, published December 30, 2013 (AAI Rule). Specifically, the preamble to the amended AAI Rule states:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today is taking final action to amend the standards and practices for conducting all appropriate inquiries under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to reference a standard practice recently made available by ASTM International, a widely recognized standards development organization. Specifically, this final rule amends the ‘‘All Appropriate Inquiries Rule’’ at 40 CFR Part 312 to reference ASTM International’s E1527–13 ‘‘Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process’’ and make clear that persons conducting all appropriate inquiries may use the procedures included in this standard to comply with the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule1. 1 Federal Register: December 30, 2013 (Volume 78, Number 250) Page 79319 2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 3 One of the requirements that a person acquiring real property must meet in order to qualify for either the innocent landowner, contiguous owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser (collectively hereinafter “Prospective Purchaser”) defense to liability under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields’ Revitalization Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (collectively referred to hereafter as “CERCLA”) is that person must conduct all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of the property in conformance with the AAI Rule (or the ASTM E1527-13) prior to acquisition of the property. The User has acknowledged that, under the AAI Rule, Roux’ performance of this Phase I ESA in accordance with ASTM E1527-13 will not alone result in the User satisfying all requirements of the AAI Rule and will not in itself provide a defense to CERCLA liability. The User has acknowledged that the AAI Rule also requires that the Prospective Purchaser undertake certain additional inquiries and post-acquisition activities to satisfy the CERCLA AAI requirements. Accordingly, Roux makes no guarantees or warranties, expressed or implied, regarding this Phase I ESA, including without limitation, that this Phase I ESA will qualify the User for a defense to CERCLA liability.
Roux has performed this Phase I ESA in a professional manner using that degree of skill and care exercised for similar projects under similar conditions by reputable and competent environmental consultants.
Professional judgments expressed herein are based on the facts currently available to Roux.
The AAI Rule requires, and the conclusions and recommendations stated herein represent, the application of a variety of engineering and technical disciplines to material facts and conditions associated with the Site. As such, these conclusions and recommendations are based on subjective interpretations and the exercise of discretion based on the facts available to Roux and conditions at the time of the performance of this Phase I ESA. Many of these facts and conditions are subject to change over time. Accordingly, the conclusions and recommendations must be considered within this context.
The User has agreed that Roux shall not be responsible for conditions or consequences arising from relevant facts that were concealed, withheld, or not fully disclosed at the time this Phase I ESA was performed. To the extent practicable, Roux has identified data gaps, and has evaluated the potential significance of such data gaps. Recommendations to address those data gaps are presented herein and are based on the data available at the time of the performance of this Phase I ESA. Implementation of the recommendations may not fully address the data gaps, and the information obtained from execution of those recommendations may alter and/or modify the interpretation of the Site conditions and conclusions, herein. This Phase I ESA does not include consideration of matters specifically excluded by ASTM E1527- 13, including but not limited to, asbestos-containing building materials, radon, lead-based paint, lead in drinking water, wetlands, regulatory compliance, and mold unless specifically identified herein.
Roux has not collected any soil and/or groundwater samples on the Site for Phase I purposes, and is relying on information presented by others, often in preliminary, draft, or verbal form. By referencing this information, Roux does not accept responsibility for the accuracy of the underlying data, sampling methods, laboratory analysis, or documentation.
This Phase I ESA Report should not be considered a legal interpretation of existing environmental laws and regulations. This Phase I ESA was conducted with a reasonable degree of inquiry to identify recognized environmental conditions, but uncertainty is not eliminated. No Phase I ESA can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with a property. 2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 4 The Phase I ESA process is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, the uncertainty involved with identifying recognized environmental conditions.
This Phase I ESA Report is not an appraisal or value judgment of the Site. The User has agreed that Roux shall not be liable for any use of this Phase I ESA Report as an appraisal or value judgment of the Site.
This Phase I ESA Report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the User for specific application to the Site covered by this Phase I ESA Report. The User has agreed that any third-party use of this Phase I ESA Report, upon disclosure by the User, is the sole responsibility and at the sole liability of the User.
1.5 User Reliance
No additional parties may use the information contained in this report without obtaining the written permission of Roux or the User. Roux’ duties and obligations extend to the User and to no other party. Roux’ duties and obligations to the User are not transferable to persons, corporations, or organizations without the express written consent of the User and Roux. The User may rely upon the information provided in this Phase I ESA report for a period of 180 days from the date of issue. After 180 days, this Phase I ESA should be updated in accordance with ASTM guidance. Roux will not be liable for any consequential damages arising from the use of this report for other than its intended purpose, for use of this report beyond 180 days of its issue date, or from unauthorized use by third parties.
This Phase I ESA report must be read and interpreted as a whole and can only be considered representative of the conditions of the Site as of the date of our site reconnaissance described herein. Roux makes no representation whatsoever concerning the condition of the Site beyond the date of our site reconnaissance described herein. Individual sections and appendices of this report are dependent on the balance of this report, and on the terms, conditions, and stipulations contained in the proposal and written amendments accepted by Roux.
2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 5
2. Site Description
2.1 Site Location and Description
Site Information
Site Name Shea San Jacinto
Street Address(es) No current address; Historically used 870 and 1380 North Sanderson Avenue City City of San Jacinto
County Riverside
State California
Location West of North Sanderson Avenue, east of Odel Avenue and south of Ramona Boulevard
Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 432-030-006, 432-030-010, and 432-030-011 Site Acreage (per Riverside
County Assessor Website) Approximately 470 acres
Site Occupant(s) None; currently unoccupied
Onsite Operations None; formerly operated as sod farm and heifer raising farm Description of Onsite Structures None; Site consists of vacant land and is equipped with remnant cisterns, concrete building foundations, and a pond (water reservoir) Site Paving Unpaved vacant graded land with areas overgrown with weeds and native desert brush
Site Grading Graded to drain at a gentle slope roughly oriented to the north Site Vicinity Rural and agricultural
Refer to Section 5.0 for a detailed description of the current condition of the Site and operations.
2.2 Vicinity General Characteristics
The facilities and improvements which are located immediately adjacent to the Site are provided in the following table.
Direction from Site Improvements / Use (Addresses)
North Records Road and vacant and/or agricultural land
East North Sanderson Avenue, followed by vacant and/or agricultural land and California Equine Retirement Foundation (805 North Sanderson Avenue) South San Jacinto Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (770 North Sanderson Avenue)
Southwest Residence and vacant and/or agricultural land West Demler Farms (1455 North Warren Road)
2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 6
2.3 Past Use of the Site
Based on a review of historical sources, the Site was developed with a residential structure by 1901 with a workshop and two barns added by 1953. By 1949, the northeastern portion of the Site was developed for agricultural use, possibly row crops. Agricultural production extended to the remainder of the Site and remained until approximately 2012. Agricultural features added to the Site include water wells for domestic and irrigation use and small ponds. By 1978, 20 acres on the southeastern portion of the Site were developed with a heifer raising farm including corrals, water cisterns, and covered structures. A large pond (or water reservoir) was added to the southwestern corner of the Site by 1985. The heifer farm remained operational through at least 2006 became inactive by 2009. All the former structures, including all residential and agricultural support structures were demolished by 2012. The Site has since remained inactive and currently consists of vacant graded land with earthen roads.
2.4 Physical Setting
Roux obtained and reviewed published, reasonably ascertainable information concerning the physical setting of the Site. The following is a summary of the information reviewed from those physical setting sources.
Physical Setting Summary
United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Topographic Map Lakeview, California Quadrangle
Approximate Site Elevation /
Source
1460 to 1490 feet above mean sea level (msl) / Lakeview, California (2012) 7.5- minute quadrangle topographic map published by the USGS Nearest Surface Water Features
/ Approximate Distance
San Jacinto Reservoir, an unlined stormwater drainage pond / 0.3 mile east of the Site
Regional Geology / Source
Quaternary deposits: alluvium, lake, playa and terrace, consolidated and semiconsolidated / California Department of Conservation, 2010 Geologic Map of California
Site Topography / Source Generally flat with a gradual slope to the east-northeast / Site observation and USGS topographic map
Hydrogeological Region / Source
Located along the eastern portion of the San Jacinto Groundwater Basin / California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118, Update 2003 and Interim Update 2016
Depth to Groundwater / Source
Greater than 70 feet bgs / Previous Site investigation (ATC, 2000) 11 to 13 feet bgs (perched) / Monitoring well installation report for a facility approximately 0.6 mile northeast of the Site (Leighton, 2009) Groundwater Gradient Direction /
Source
Northeast / Groundwater monitoring data for a facility approximately 0.6 mile northeast of the Site (Leighton, 2009)
Onsite Soil Unconsolidated sands and gravel from the surface to 70 feet bgs (ATC, 2000) 2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 7
3. Sources of Information
Sources of information utilized in preparing this Phase I ESA report included historical topographic maps; historical aerial photographs; a walkover survey of the Site and adjoining properties; in-person discussions with User and tenant personnel; a review of records available at selected local and state regulatory agencies; a review of databases maintained by local, state, and federal government agencies; and other records available from commercial and online sources.
3.1 Historical Sources
To help understand the history of the Site and past land uses, historical sources were obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), of Shelton, Connecticut. The sources and locations within the Appendices are provided in the table below.
EDR Historical Sources
Historical Range Source Appendix
1901 - 2012 U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Maps B
1938 - 2016 EDR Aerial Photographs “Decade Package” C
No Available Coverage EDR “Certified Sanborn® Map Report” D 1971 - 2017 EDR “City Directory Image Report” E
3.2 Site Reconnaissance
On August 3, 2021, Roux personnel conducted a reconnaissance of the Site and surrounding areas. Roux visually and/or physically observed adjoining properties from reasonably accessible locations on the Site and public thoroughfares. Photographs documenting Roux’ Site Reconnaissance are provided in Appendix G. 2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 8
3.3 Regulatory Agencies
Roux contacted governmental agencies for reasonably ascertainable information concerning environmental conditions at the Site. Roux contacted or reviewed information from the agencies provided in the following table. Refer to Appendix G – Pertinent Historical Documentation for copies of the records reviewed. A summary of the information gathered from the regulatory agencies is provided in the table and details regarding the records were incorporated into applicable sections as noted.
Agency
Date
Requested
/ Accessed
Response
Date Description of Records Section Discussed
Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) –
FOIAonline 07/29/2021 08/02/2021 No records were associated with the Site N/A U.S EPA MyProperty Database 07/29/2021 N/A No records were associated with the Site. N/A National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS)
Online Database 07/29/2021 N/A No records were associated with the Site. N/A State
State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB): GeoTracker Online Database 07/29/2021 N/A A LUST case at Westra Dairy Farm in 2001 was associated with 870 N Sanderson Avenue. 6.0
SWRCB: Storm Water Multiple Application and
Report Tracking System (SMARTS) Online
Database
07/29/2021 N/A No records were associated with the Site. N/A Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) 07/29/2021 07/30/2021 No additional records were identified through this request – the DTSC referred to available documents on EnviroStor and the HWTS database
N/A
DTSC: EnviroStor Online Database 07/29/2021 N/A
A listing for the proposed high school as associated with the Site. Representatives from the DTSC Cypress office
informed Roux any records for the proposed high school not available online are no longer on file and have likely been purged.
8.1 DTSC: Hazardous Waste Tracking System
(HWTS) Online Database 07/29/2021 N/A
One disposal record associated with the Western Family
Trust is associated with 870 N Sanderson Avenue. This
listing appears to be associated with removal of former underground tanks at the Site.
6.0 2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 9 Agency
Date
Requested
/ Accessed
Response
Date Description of Records Section Discussed
California Air Resources Board (CARB) 07/29/2021 08/02/2021 No records were associated with the Site. N/A California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) 07/29/2021 N/A No response has been received as of this report date. N/A California EPA (CalEPA) 07/29/2021 N/A No response has been received as of this report date. N/A CalEPA CalRecycle 07/29/2021 08/03/2021 No records were associated with the Site. N/A CalEPA CalRecycle Solid Waste Information
System (SWIS) Online Database 07/29/2021 N/A No records were associated with the Site. N/A California Geological Energy Management
(CalGEM) Online Database 07/29/2021 N/A No records were associated with the Site or vicinity. N/A County / Regional
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board (SARWQCB) 07/29/2021 08/23/2021 Records provided by the SARWQCB for the Site are discussed below in Section 6.0. 6.0
South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) 07/29/2021 7/30/2021 No records were associated with the Site. N/A SCAQMD Facility Information Detail (FIND)
Online Database 07/29/2021 N/A No records were associated with the Site. N/A County of Riverside Department of
Environmental Health
07/29/2021 7/30/2021 No records were associated with the Site. N/A County of Riverside Department of Buildings and
Safety
07/29/2021 08/04/2021 Records provided include permits for installation of electrical lines to barn, well, pumps dated between 1982 and 1991. N/A County of Riverside Fire Department 07/29/2021 N/A No response has been received as of this report date. N/A City / Local
City of San Jacinto City Clerk 07/29/2021 8/25/2021
Records have not been received as of this report date.
According to the City Clerk’s office, the request for records is still being processed.
N/A
2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 10
3.3.1 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) A 61-acre portion of the Site is listed by the California DTSC as the “Proposed High School at the Villages of San Jacinto” (Global ID T60000906) at the intersection of Ramona Boulevard and Cawston Avenue. In 2008, the San Jacinto Unified School District filed for an Environmental Oversight Agreement with the DTSC for oversight of the preparation of a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) at Site Assessor Parcel Numbers 432-030-006 and 432-030-010. Three pages of the PEA including the introduction and part of the executive summary are available on EnviroStor appended to a response to comments matrix; however, the full PEA document is not available online. According to the available PEA sections, soil samples were collected and analyzed for organochlorine pesticides and arsenic. The DTSC issued an Approval of PEA Report on September 17, 2008, and stated that neither a release of hazardous material nor the presence of a naturally occurring hazardous material posed a threat to public health or the environment. The case is currently marked as ‘No Further Action’ on EnviroStor as of September 24, 2008. According to EnviroStor records, the area assessed was limited to 61 acres that were planned for school redevelopment. Soil sampling for pesticides and metals does not appear to have been conducted on the remaining areas of the Site.
Roux contacted the DTSC Cypress office for copies of the PEA reports. Ms. Gloria Conti and Ms. Jone Barrio of the DTSC Cypress office informed Roux that no other pertinent records, including the PEA report, for the proposed high school are on file with the DTSC and have likely been purged. Ms. Jone Barrio informed Roux that a copy of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is available for review in the DTSC file room. Roux’ inability to obtain a copy of the previous PEA report represents a data gap. Based the limited information available online for the PEA and NFA letter issued by the DTSC, this limitation is not expected to alter the findings of this assessment
3.4 Government Databases
To document potential sources of contamination at or near the Site, a government records search was conducted by EDR. The search included local, state, and federal records for the Site and for other properties within ASTM-standard distances of the Site. The records search is summarized in Section 7.0 and a copy of “The EDR Radius Map™ Report with GeoCheck®,” dated July 30, 2021, is included in its entirety as Appendix F. As recommended by ASTM, all but a few of the databases searched were “current,” i.e., had been updated within 90 days prior to the search date.
2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 11
3.5 User Provided Information
ASTM E1527-13 provides that the User perform certain tasks. The purpose of this section is to present select User-provided information that can assist in identifying possible recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Site. According to ASTM E1527-13, these tasks do not require the technical expertise of an environmental professional and the environmental professional generally does not perform these tasks.
Roux administered a questionnaire to the User at the beginning of this Phase I ESA to assist them with these tasks. The following sections outline the parts of the questionnaire that the User completed.
3.5.1 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations The User indicated that they have no knowledge regarding environmental liens or activity and use limitations (engineering/institutional controls) with respect to the Site.
3.5.2 Specialized Knowledge
The User did not report any specialized knowledge related to the Site.
3.5.3 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
The User indicated that they have no knowledge regarding valuation reduction for environmental issues.
3.5.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information The User did not have any knowledge regarding commonly known or reasonable ascertainable information about the Site not otherwise addressed.
3.5.5 Obvious Indicators of the Presence or Likely Presence of Contamination of the Site The User did not have any knowledge regarding obvious indicators of the presence or likely presence of contamination of the Site not otherwise addressed.
3.6 Interviews
On August 26, 2021, Roux attempted to reach an owner of the Site, Mr. Cal Westra, via telephone. Roux was informed that the phone number for Mr. Westra had been reassigned. Based on the information obtained from previous reports and historical sources available, this limitation is not expected to significant alter the findings of this assessment.
2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 12
4. Site History
This section documents the history of the Site and describes current conditions and existing or former environmental features.
4.1 Site History
The history of the Site and, to a lesser extent, the surrounding area, including previous land use, has been compiled based on information from the exhaustive list of sources provided in Section 3.
Summary of Historical Sources
Decade Year Source Site Description Vicinity Description Early Residential Development
Pre-1900 No Sources Available
1900s 1901
Historical Topographic
Map: Elsinore / San
Jacinto (15-minute)
Mostly vacant land located in a rural area of San Jacinto Viejo. Southern portion of the site is developed with a road and single structure likely used as a residence or
homestead.
Adjacent sites appear as vacant land. Nearby
arterial roads are to the west and north. Two
unnamed streams are to the north.
1910s No Sources Available
1920s No Sources Available
1930s 1938 EDR Aerial Photograph
No significant changes from prior Site history except for addition of ancillary structures to residence or homestead on the southern portion of the Site.
No significant changes from prior history.
Agricultural Development
1940s
1943
Historical Topographic
Map: Perris / Banning
(15-minute)
No significant changes from prior Site history. No significant changes from prior history. 1949 EDR Aerial Photograph
The northeastern portion of the Site was developed for
agricultural use, possibly row crops. Three additional
structures were added west of the existing residence in the southern portion and one small structure of unknown use was added on the northwestern corner of the Site
Agricultural development is noted to the
northeast and east of the Site.
2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 13 Summary of Historical Sources
Decade Year Source Site Description Vicinity Description 1950s 1953
EDR Aerial Photograph Agricultural development has extended to the northern and central portions of the Site.
Increase agricultural development to the
northeast and east of the Site.
Historical Topographic
Map: La Jolla (15-
minute)
Three water wells, likely used for irrigation, were added to the Site.
Addition of unnamed road (later Sanderson
Avenue) to the east and San Jacinto Reservoir
and canal further to the southeast.
1960s
1961 EDR Aerial Photograph Agricultural development throughout the Site increased. No significant changes from prior history. 1967
Historical Topographic
Map: Lakeview / San
Jacinto (7.5-minute)
A fourth water well and two intermittent ponds were added to the Site.
Addition of duck ponds to the northeast and
east, sewage disposal ponds to the south,
several wells throughout the surrounding areas,
and canal and aqueduct part of the nearby San
Jacinto Reservoir.
1970s
1975 EDR Aerial Photograph
The two previous ponds were no longer present. Two
windmills were depicted to the west of the Site in
topographic maps, although no windmills were noted
within the Site boundaries during review of historical aerial photographs
Addition of water reclamation plant adjacent to
the south
1978 EDR Aerial Photograph
A heifer farm, totaling approximately 20 acres, was
operating on the southeastern portion of the Site.
Discernable features include multiple enclosures (or
corrals), and four covered structures.
Addition of ponds or other water features to the
southwest and south.
1979
Historical Topographic
Map: Lakeview / San
Jacinto (7.5-minute)
No significant changes from prior Site history. No significant changes from prior history. 1980s
1985 EDR Aerial Photograph
A presently existing water reservoir had been constructed in the southwestern corner of the Site. The remainder of the Site is developed for agricultural use including row crops or heifer farm.
Addition of dairy farms to the west.
1989 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior Site history. No significant changes from prior history. 1990s 1991 Building Permits
Site equipped with a residence, workshop, two barns,
several corrals, and shade structures. The southern and central portions of the site were used for grain storage (or growth), oats, and alfalfa.
N/A
2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 14 Summary of Historical Sources
Decade Year Source Site Description Vicinity Description 1996 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior Site history. No significant changes from prior history. 2000s
2002
EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior Site history. No significant changes from prior history.
Previous Reports
Site was reportedly occupied by one residential structure, two warehouses, a storage shed, two office trailers, and three groundwater wells (one domestic and two irrigation), covered areas for the cows (barn structures), and
equipment storage areas
N/A
2006 EDR Aerial Photograph No significant changes from prior Site history. Former ponds to the southwest have been redeveloped for agricultural use (row crops).
2009
Previous Reports
A site visit was conducted in May 2009 as part of the EIR.
The only reported structures observed on-Site were an
abandoned residence and “shade structures”. The heifer
farm operations were reportedly no longer active as of
2009.
N/A
EDR Aerial Photograph
Two of the previous “shade structures” remain onsite.
The majority of the Site appears vacant and may have no longer been developed for agricultural use.
No significant changes from prior history.
2010s 2012
Historical Topographic
Map: Lakeview / San
Jacinto (7.5-minute)
No significant changes from prior Site history. No significant changes from prior history.
EDR Aerial Photograph
All the former structures have been demolished. Some
agricultural features (light row crops) appear throughout the Site.
No significant changes from prior history.
2020s 2021 Site Reconnaissance No significant changes from prior Site history. No significant changes from prior history. 2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 15
5. Current Site Conditions
A Roux representative, Mr. Connor Moore, conducted a reconnaissance of the Site and surrounding areas on August 3, 2021. Roux also visually and/or physically observed adjoining properties from reasonably accessible locations on the Site and public thoroughfares. During the Site reconnaissance, the weather was clear and the temperature was approximately 115° Fahrenheit. A photographic log summarizing the Site Reconnaissance is provided as Appendix G. The following sections summarize observations during the inspection.
5.1 Site Reconnaissance
The Site consists of approximately 470 acres of vacant land and is bound by North Sanderson Avenue to the east and is located east of Odel Avenue and south of Ramona Boulevard. No addresses are currently assigned to the Site; however, 870 and 1380 North Sanderson Avenue have previously been used for two of the parcels. The Site is undeveloped apart from unpaved farm roads and consists of vacant graded land.
Graded areas across the Site are overgrown with weeds and native desert brush vegetation and do not appear to have been used for any purpose for many years.
Roux observed the Site from accessible road throughout the Site. Due to the size of the property and the vegetation present on site, isolated areas of the site may have not been accessible for direct observation during the Site reconnaissance.
5.2 Phase I ESA Observations
During Site reconnaissance, Roux personnel attempt to identify any environmental features that may be relevant in the context of the Phase I ESA. The features identified are summarized in the table below. Any such features are discussed in the following subsections.
Feature Observed on
the Site
Observed on
an Adjacent
Property
Areas of stressed vegetation
Areas which receive flood or storm water from
potentially contaminated areas
Air Compressor Vent Discharges
Chemical Storage and/or Use
Drainage Swales and Culverts
Discharge Areas
Discolored or Spill Areas
Drums (55 Gallons or Larger) X
Electrical Transformers X
Former Agricultural Applied Pesticide Area X
2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 16 Feature Observed on
the Site
Observed on
an Adjacent
Property
Hydraulic Lifts
Incinerators
Landfills or Landfarms
Loading and Unloading Areas
Non-Contact Cooling Water Discharge
Oil-Water Separator(s)
Open Areas Away from Production Areas
Process Area Sinks and Piping
Rail Cars/Railroad Spurs
Septic Systems Leach Fields or Seepage Pits
Silos
Sprayfields
Storm Sewer and Spill Containment Collection
System
Storm Water Detention Pond X
Surface Impoundments and Lagoons
Underground / Aboveground Storage Tanks and
Associated Piping
Waste Piles X
Wells X
5.2.1 Drums (55 Gallons or Larger)
Two abandoned 55-gallon drums were observed during Roux’ Site reconnaissance on August 3, 2021. The drums were observed on a concrete pad in the southeastern portion of the Site in the vicinity of the former heifer ranch area and appeared to contain unknown waste products. Minor to moderate staining was observed in the vicinity of these features. The staining was located on a paved area. It appears that the staining is surficial in nature and thus is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern. As a best management practice, any abandoned drums should be removed from the Site and properly disposed.
5.2.2 Electrical Transformers
Roux personnel observed pole-mounted transformers at the Site. Staining was not observed at the base of the transformer poles. Based on the construction and appearance of the transformers, they did not appear to be wet-type, with the potential to contain PCBs. Roux does not consider the presence of these transformers to be an environmental concern.
2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 17
5.2.3 Former Agricultural Applied Pesticide Area
Based on a review of historical sources, a portion of the Site was developed for agricultural use (row crops) as early as 1949 with increased agricultural development noted from at least 1978 to 2016. No indications of former row crops were observed on the Site. According to the EIR, a portion of the Site was developed as a sod farm from 1997 through at least 2002. Any residual pesticide, herbicide, or fertilizer residue in Site soils associated with sod farming was not identified as an environmental concern based on the removal of shallow soils during sod harvest. Agricultural production prior to 1997 at the Site is not currently known.
However, it is likely that agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, were used onSite historically, and the potential for impacts from agricultural chemicals to on-Site soils is considered a REC.
5.2.4 Storm Water Detention Pond
The Site is equipped with a drainage pond located on the southwestern corner. According to aerial photographs, the pond was added between 1978 and 1985 and was likely used as part of the heifer ranch operations. According to the EIR, the reservoir contained reclaimed water from the nearby San Jacinto Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility related to irrigation for sod farming activities on-Site. It is unknown whether the pond also historically received wastewater from the on-Site ranch operations, was used for agricultural irrigation, or stored water treated with larvicide/repellant for mosquito control. The pond appeared unlined, allowing waters to infiltrate the ground and recharge the aquifer. Based on the historical agricultural use of the Site, the on-Site pond represents a REC.
5.2.5 Wells
According to topographic maps, the Site has been equipped with at least four groundwater wells located throughout the Site. During the 2002 Phase I ESA, a total of three wells, including one domestic production well and two irrigation wells, were observed on-site. Only one of the three wells noted during the 2002 Phase I ESA match a known well depicted in topographic maps. Two of the irrigation groundwater wells noted during the 2002 Phase I ESA were located during Roux’ Site reconnaissance. According to the EIR, any known and discovered wells will be abandoned and decommissioned in accordance with SA-RWQCB and RCDEH protocols.
5.3 Vapor Intrusion
Roux performed a vapor migration/intrusion pathway assessment. Operation of the Site as a heifer raising farm constitutes a known source for potential vapor intrusion. No known sources for potential vapor intrusion were identified for any adjacent or nearby properties.
The former onsite operations have been identified elsewhere in this report as recognized environmental conditions or other environmental features.
2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 18
6. Summary of Key Previous Investigations
The following sections provide a summary of previous environmental investigations at the Site, particularly in regard to the former gasoline and diesel USTs at the Site.
Westra Dairy Farm, located at 870 Sanderson Avenue, was identified in the GeoTracker database as having a closed Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) file. According to records provided by the SA-RWQCB, the former on-Site dairy farm (or heifer ranch) had two 1,000-gallon gasoline USTs and one 10,000-gallon diesel UST. The locations of the former USTs as provided by these documents are included in Figure 2.
6.1 Site Investigation (ATC, 2000)
Under direction of the County of Riverside, two 1,000-gallon USTs and one 10,000-gallon USTs were removed from the Site in December 1999. The tank area was over-excavated and approximately 120 tons of hydrocarbon-impacted soil were removed and transported for off-Site disposal. ATC was retained to delineate the vertical and lateral extent of impacts to the soil.
In October 2000, three borings (S-1, S-2, and S-3) were drilled in the area of the former USTs to depths of 60 and 70 feet bgs. Groundwater was not encountered during this investigation. Soil samples were collected at 5-foot intervals starting at 15 feet bgs to the total depth of each boring. Soil samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline (TPH-g) and diesel (TPH-d) and aromatic hydrocarbons.
Selected samples collected at 15 feet from S-1 and S-3 were also analyzed for fuel oxygenates, alcohols, and semi-volatiles at the request of the SA-RWQCB.
Based on the analytical results of the soil sampling, ATC determined that the extent of the contamination was “very limited”, and the vertical extent reached below the former tanks to a depth of 35 feet.
6.2 Well Installation and Vapor Extraction Testing (Stratus, 2001) In accordance with a workplan approved by the SA-RWQCB, Stratus installed one vapor extraction well (VE1) to assess if any residual petroleum hydrocarbon source remained in the soil that would pose a threat to groundwater resources. VE-1 was installed to a terminal depth of 20 feet bgs and located on the northeastern corner of the former tank excavation. Soil samples were collected at 5-foot intervals and screened using a photoionization detector (PID).
Following the installation of the vapor extraction well in May 2001, a mobile soil vapor extraction (SVE) system was used to extract and treat soil vapors. A vapor extraction test was conducted for 7 hours and reportedly removed an estimated 9.55 pounds of vapor-phase hydrocarbons. Influent soil vapor samples were collected at the startup, mid-point, and end-point of the vapor extraction test and analyzed for volatile fuel hydrocarbons (VFH), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE).
Laboratory results of the end-point vapor sample identified VFH at 2,300 parts per million volume (ppmv), benzene at 17 ppmv, toluene at 57 ppmv, total xylenes at 24 ppmv, and MTBE at 270 ppmv. Soil samples do not appear to have been collected following the vapor extraction test. It is unknown if the SVE system operated outside of the 7-hour vapor extraction test as part of remediation for the impacted soils.
A “No Further Action” letter was issued by the SA-RWQCB to the Westra Family Trust on December 26, 2001. The closure letter recommended that correction action should be reviewed if land use changes.
According to the “No Further Action” letter, data from this investigation indicates that the residual petroleum hydrocarbons in soil are limited to an area with a 15-foot radius between 15 and 20 feet bgs and did not 2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 19 indicate a significant presence or source of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil. At the request of the SARWQCB, the vapor extraction well at the Site (identified as a “study well”) was properly sealed and abandoned by April 15, 2002.
Although a closure document was issued by the SA-RWQCB in 2001, the remaining petroleum hydrocarbonimpacted soil in the former LUST area is considered a hREC.
6.3 Draft Environmental Impact Report (Dudek, 2009)
Dudek prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of San Jacinto for the proposed Villages of San Jacinto redevelopment project (the Site). The Villages of San Jacinto project consisted of mixed-use redevelopment of the Site including parks, residences, and a high school. Included in the EIR is a reference to a previous Phase I ESA prepared by Gradient Engineers, dated October 10, 2002. A copy of this report was not included in the appendices provided to Roux. Roux has requested a copy of the 2002 Phase I ESA from the City of San Jacinto; however, records have not been provided as of this writing. The following onSite environmental hazards were identified in the EIR, particularly regarding the former agricultural operations and petroleum storage.
• Former Heifer Farm. A southeastern portion of the Site, totaling approximately 20 acres in size, was formerly developed as a heifer raising farm from at least 1978 through 2002. The former heifer farm operations represented a REC due to the possible presence of methane from manure.
According to the EIR, the Riverside County’s Methane Investigation Protocol would be followed in order to ensure that methane hazards do not exist on the 20-acre portion of the Site formerly used for heifer raising. Methane gas sampling and associated mitigation activities were reportedly planned after grading, in accordance with RCDEH protocols.
• Petroleum-Stained Soil. During the 2002 Phase I ESA, petroleum-stained soil was observed beneath a diesel aboveground storage tank (AST) located northwest of the reservoir (pond), near the irrigation groundwater well located southwest of the reservoir, and on the floor of the equipment shed, beneath three oil-containing 55-gallon drums. Based on the storage of hazardous substances and petroleum products in uncovered ground areas and evidence of a release, the former chemical storage identified above represented a REC. In order to evaluate and possibly mitigate environmental hazards associated with petroleum releases, the EIR recommend sampling and proper disposal of stained soils.
• Septic Systems. According to the EIR, the Site was equipped with two septic systems that historical sources suggest may have been in operation for many decades. The EIR stated the septic systems would be removed along with any residue material in accordance with RCDEH protocols. Based on the likely use of these systems for domestic waste only, the existing septic systems represent an OEF.
• Debris. Debris, including old equipment, water heaters, tires, and trash were observed in several piles throughout the site both in the 2002 Phase I ESA and during Site reconnaissance associated with the EIR. Several mounds of soil also were observed across the Site. According to the EIR, the soil piles were generated from on-Site activities and were piled for storage and eventual removal.
The EIR recommended a qualified environmental professional be present on-Site during removal of debris piles to assess debris and stockpiled soils and direct disposal accordingly. All debris would be disposed of in accordance with state and local laws. Based on observations made during the Site reconnaissance, on-Site debris represent an OEF.
2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 20
7. Database Records Review
7.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources
According to ASTM Standard E1527-13, the purpose of reviewing regulatory records is to obtain and review records that will help identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Site. In addition, some records to be reviewed pertain not only to the Site, but also to properties within an additional “approximate minimum search distance” in order to help assess the likelihood of problems from migrating hazardous substances or petroleum products. The basis of the “approximate minimum search distance” is the Site boundary.
Roux retained EDR of Shelton, Connecticut to provide an ASTM Radius Map Report (EDR Report) for this Site. This report is a computerized search of select state and federal environmental databases that identify various properties with a record of environmental activity. Roux reviewed the report and summarized the relevant findings in the following sections. A copy of the compiled EDR Report has been included as Appendix F. The EDR report includes a detailed description of each of the databases searched, providing a summary of the type of information provided by each. A summary of Roux’ review of the EDR Report listings is provided in Table 1.
The following section describes the findings of the database search. Roux used professional judgement in determining which EDR-listed sites to include in the narrative of this report. Facilities adjoining the Site were included due to their proximity to the Site and the potential for surface water discharges (e.g., storm water runoff, surface water effluent discharges) to enter the Site or through the migration of groundwater. Sites with listings indicative of a release (e.g., SHWS, LUST, RELEASE) are likewise discussed below.
Nonadjacent facilities with database listings not necessarily indicative of a release (hazardous waste generator, FINDS, ECHO, NPDES, HAZNET, AST, or UST) will not be discussed unless considered potentially relevant in context of the Phase I ESA.
7.1.1 Site (Target Property)
Address Owner/Operator Database(s)
870 Sanderson Avenue
None identified CHMIRS
Western Family Trust HAZNET, HWTS
Westra Dairy Farm RGA LUST, LUST, Cortese, CERS, FINDS
Quality Turf FINDS
Proposed High School at the
Villages of San Jacinto ENVIROSTOR, SCH
According to the CHMIRS listing, Riverside County Fire Department was called to a burning operation at a dairy on January 28, 1999. Ten 55-gallon drums of waste motor oil were identified to be leaking and overturned. There was reportedly evidence that some oil had been dumped into a refuse pit and burned. No additional pertinent information such as the location of the drums or cleanup activities were provided. Roux 2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 21 requested records from Riverside County Fire Department on July 29, 2021. No response has been received as of this report date.
In 1999, Western Family Trust generated 4.17 tons of off-specification, aged or surplus inorganics at the Site.
This listing may be associated with removal of hazardous waste drums such as the 10 drums identified in the CHMIRS. Environmental concerns associated with former aboveground chemical storage at the Site are discussed in Section 6.0.
Westra Dairy Farm was identified as a closed Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) facility. According to the listings, a release of gasoline to soil was remediated under oversight of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The closed LUST case is further discussed above in Section 6.0.
According to client-provided information, a portion of the Site was formerly proposed to be redeveloped with a school campus. The proposed school facility, located at Ramona Boulevard and Cawston Avenue, was identified as a school investigation EnviroStor listing. The closed EnviroStor case is further discussed above in Section 8.1.
7.1.2 Adjoining and Nearby Properties
Discussions of adjoining and nearby properties of potential environmental concern as noted in Table 1 are provided below.
• EMWD San Jacinto Valley RWRF / Hemet San Jacinto Reg Water (770 North Sanderson Avenue). The south adjacent site, identified as a sewage treatment facility, was identified in the AST, RCRA-LQG, CERS HAZ WASTE, CERS TANKS, CHMIRS, NPDES, CIWQS, and CERS database. According to the AST listing, this facility is equipped with ASTs totaling 3,720 gallons in capacity. The quantity and contents of the tanks were not provided. The RCRA-LQG listing indicates ignitable waste, corrosive waste, and lead have been generated by the facility. This adjacent site has reportedly been issued a construction stormwater permit by the Eastern Municipal Water District.
Absent any additional information, this adjacent site is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern to the Site based on the lack of a documented release.
7.1.3 Orphan Sites
The EDR Report includes a section addressing “Orphan Sites.” Orphan sites are sites, which, due to incomplete geographic location data, incomplete address information or incorrect address information, cannot be plotted correctly. The database report identified one unmapped facility. • Hemet/San Jacinto WWRD (770 Sanderson). The south adjacent site was identified in the CIWQS database. This listing pertains to an inactive industrial stormwater permit issued to the facility by the Eastern Municipal Water District. Based on the lack of a documented release associated with this facility, this listing is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern. 2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 22
8. Findings
Roux has performed this Phase I ESA in general compliance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E1527-13. Roux separated the findings of this assessment into the following four categories:
recognized environmental conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions, historical recognized environmental conditions and other environmental features.
8.1 Data Gaps
During conduct of this ESA, the following data gaps, as defined in ASTM Standard E1527-13 were identified:
• The timing of the report did not allow for all contacted agencies to respond to the records requests issued, including a request pending with the City of San Jacinto City Clerk. This data gap is not considered significant due to sufficient information available from previous environmental reports, the EDR report, and city, county, and state websites.
• Previous Site owners/operators were not available for an interview. On August 26, 2021, Roux attempted to reach an owner of the Site, Mr. Cal Westra, via telephone. Roux was informed that the phone number for Mr. Westra had been reassigned. This data gap is not considered significant due to sufficient information regarding Site history available from EDR historical documents and FOIA requests.
• Roux observed the Site from accessible road throughout the Site. Due to the size of the property and the vegetation present on site, isolated areas of the site may have not been accessible for direct observation during the Site reconnaissance.
• A portion of the Site is listed by the California DTSC as the “Proposed High School at the Villages of San Jacinto” (Global ID T60000906) at the intersection of Ramona Boulevard and Cawston Avenue.
Three pages of a PEA report including the introduction and part of the executive summary are available on EnviroStor appended to a response to comments matrix; however, the full PEA document is not available online. Roux contacted the DTSC Cypress office for copies of the PEA reports. Ms. Gloria Conti and Ms. Jone Barrio of the DTSC Cypress office informed Roux that no other pertinent records for the proposed high school are on file with the DTSC and have likely been purged. Roux’ inability to obtain a copy of the previous PEA report represents a data gap. Based the limited information available online for the PEA and NFA letter issued by the DTSC, this limitation is not expected to alter the findings of this assessment.
8.2 Recognized Environmental Conditions
Based on the information obtained through the performance of this ESA, Roux identified the following RECs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Site or adjacent properties. To the extent possible, the locations of the RECs are shown in Figure 2. To avoid confusion, all RECs, cRECs, and hRECs, and OEFs are numbered sequentially.
REC 1 – Former Heifer Farm. A southeastern portion of the Site, totaling approximately 20 acres in size, was formerly developed as a heifer raising farm from at least 1978 through 2002. The former heifer farm operations represented a REC due to the possible presence of methane from manure.
REC 2 - Petroleum-Stained Soil. During a reconnaissance of the Site conducted in 2002, petroleumstained soil was observed beneath a diesel AST located northwest of the reservoir (pond), near the irrigation groundwater well located southwest of the reservoir, and on the floor of the equipment shed, beneath three oil-containing 55-gallon drums. Based on the storage of hazardous substances and 2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 23 petroleum products in uncovered ground areas and evidence of a release, the former chemical storage identified above represented a REC.
REC 3 - Pond. The Site is equipped with a pond located on the southwestern corner. According to aerial photographs, the pond was added between 1978 and 1985 and was likely used as part of the heifer ranch operations. According to a 2009 EIR, the reservoir contained reclaimed water from the neighboring San Jacinto Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility related to irrigation for sod farming activities on-Site. It is unknown whether the pond also historically received wastewater from the on-Site ranch operations, was used for agricultural irrigation, or stored water treated with larvicide/repellant for mosquito control. The pond appeared unlined, allowing waters to infiltrate the ground and recharge the aquifer. Based on the historical agricultural use of the Site, the on-Site pond represents a REC.
REC 4 - Former Agricultural Applied Pesticide Area. Based on a review of historical sources, a portion of the Site was developed for agricultural use (row crops) as early as 1949 with increased agricultural development noted from at least 1978 to 2016. No indications of former row crops were observed on the Site. According to the EIR, a portion of the Site was developed as a sod farm from 1997 through at least 2002. Any residual pesticide, herbicide, or fertilizer residue in Site soils associated with sod farming was not identified as an environmental concern based on the removal of shallow soils during sod harvest. Agricultural production prior to 1997 at the Site is not currently known. However, it is likely that agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, were used on-Site historically, and the potential for impacts from agricultural chemicals to on-Site soils is considered a REC.
8.3 Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions
Roux did not identify known or suspected cRECs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Site
8.4 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
Roux identified the following hRECs in connection with the current and historical operations at the Site or adjacent properties. To the extent possible, the locations of the hRECs are shown in Figure 2. hREC 5 – Historical Underground Storage Tanks. Westra Dairy Farm, formerly located on-Site at 870 Sanderson Avenue, was identified as having a closed LUST file. According to closure documents, the former on-Site dairy farm (or heifer ranch) had two 1,000-gallon gasoline USTs and one 10,000- gallon gasoline UST located south of a former workshop building in the southern portion of the Site. All three USTs were removed from the Site in December 1999 under direction of the County of Riverside.
The tank area was over-excavated and approximately 120 tons of contaminated soil were removed and transported for off-Site disposal. In October 2000, a soil investigation identified TPH and VOC impacts below the former tanks to a depth of 35 feet bgs. In May 2001, a vapor extraction well was subsequently in the vicinity of the former tanks and a mobile soil vapor extraction system was used to extract and treat soil vapor. Soil samples do not appear to have been collected following the vapor extraction test. It is unknown if the SVE system operated outside of the 7-hour vapor extraction test as part of remediation for the impacted soils. A “No Further Action” letter was issued by the SA-RWQCB to the Westra Family Trust on December 26, 2001. The closure letter recommended that correction action should be reviewed if land use changes. According to the “No Further Action” letter, data from this investigation indicates that the residual petroleum hydrocarbons in soil are limited to an area with a 15-foot radius between 15 2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 24 and 20 feet bgs and did not indicate a significant presence or source of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil. Although a closure document was issued by the SA-RWQCB in 2001, the remaining petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil in the former LUST area is considered a hREC.
8.5 Other Environmental Features
OEFs are environmental conditions that do not meet the definition of a REC, cREC, or hREC, but which may warrant mention in a comprehensive Phase I ESA. Based on the subject Phase I ESA, Roux identified the following OEFs at or in the vicinity of the Site. To the extent possible, the locations of the OEFs are shown in Figure 2.
OEF 6 - Septic Systems. According to the EIR, the Site was equipped with two septic systems that historical sources suggest may have been in operation for many decades. The EIR stated the septic systems would be removed along with any residue material in accordance with Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH) protocols. Based on the likely use of these systems for domestic waste only, the existing septic systems represent an OEF.
OEF 7 - Debris. Debris, including old equipment, water heaters, tires, and trash were observed in several piles throughout the site both in the 2002 Phase I ESA and during Site reconnaissance associated with the EIR. Several mounds of soil also were observed across the Site. According to the EIR, the soil piles were generated from on-Site activities and were piled for storage and eventual removal. The EIR recommended a qualified environmental professional be present on-Site during removal of debris piles to assess debris and stockpiled soils and direct disposal accordingly. Based on observations made during the Site reconnaissance, on-Site debris represent an OEF.
OEF 8 - Abandoned Drums. Two abandoned 55-gallon drums were observed during Roux’ Site reconnaissance on August 3, 2021. The drums were observed on a concrete pad in the southeastern portion of the Site in the vicinity of the former heifer ranch area and appeared to contain unknown waste products. Minor to moderate staining was observed in the vicinity of these features. The staining was located on a paved area. It appears that the staining is surficial in nature and thus is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern.
2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 25
9. References
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments:
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM E 1527-13) EDR, The EDR Radius Map™ Report with GeoCheck®, July 30, 2021 EDR, The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package, July 30, 2021 EDR, EDR Historical Topo Map Report, July 30, 2021
EDR, Certified Sanborn Map Report, July 30, 2021
EDR, The EDR-City Directory Abstract, August 3, 2021
ATC Associates Inc. (ATC), Site Investigation, Westra Dairy, 870 Sanderson Avenue, San Jacinto, California, October 30, 2000.
Stratus Environmental, Inc. (Stratus), Well Investigation and Vapor Extraction Testing, Westra Diary Farm, 870 North Sanderson Avenue, San Jacinto, California, June 6, 2001.
Dudek, Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report No.2, Villages of San Jacinto, August 2009.
Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Leighton), Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation Report and Results of Groundwater Monitoring, Former San Jacinto Mobil, Site No. 200824216, 2070 North Sanderson Avenue, San Jacinto, California, August 24, 2009.
2217.0025L103/R Phase I Environmental Site Assessment | ROUX | 26
10. Signature of Environmental Professional
Roux performed this assessment in accordance with the generally accepted practices for environmental assessments at the time of implementation. Roux made a reasonable effort to ensure that the information presented in this report is materially complete and accurate.
Roux completed a Phase I ESA in general compliance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-13 of the vacant property located at west of North Sanderson Avenue, San Jacinto, Riverside County, California.
“We declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of Environmental professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312” and, “We have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the Subject property. We have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.” Roux performed this Phase I ESA by, or under direct supervision of, the undersigned environmental professionals.
Respectfully Submitted,
ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC.
Rocio Quinones
Project Scientist
Mauricio H. Escobar, P.G.
Principal Geologist
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
North Sanderson Avenue, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 432-030-006, 432-030-010, and 432-030-011 San Jacinto, California
2217.0025L103/CVRS ROUX
TABLES
1. Standard Environmental Record Sources (EDR Report) Summary Site Name Address Database Listings Distance
(Miles) Direction Discussed in Report Text
870 SANDERSON AVE CHMIRS TP TP Yes
WESTERN FAMILY TRUST 870 N SANDERSON HWTS,HAZNET TP TP Yes WESTRA DAIRY FARM 870 SANDERSON RGA LUST TP TP Yes
WESTRA DAIRY FARM 870 SANDERSON LUST,CORTESE,CE
RS TP TP Yes
WESTRA DAIRY FARM 870 SANDERSON FINDS TP TP Yes
QUALITY TURF 870 SANDERSON AVE FINDS TP TP Yes
PROPOSED HIGH SCHOOL AT THE
VILLAGES OF SAN JACINT
RAMONA
BOULEVARD/CAWSTON
AVENUE
ENVIROSTOR,SCH 0 0 Yes
PROPOSED HIGH SCHOOL
RAMONA
BOULEVARD/CAWSTON
AVENUE
CERS 0 0 Yes
SAN JACINTO VALLEY REGIONAL
WATER RECLAMATION FACI 700 N SANDERSON AVE FINDS 0 0 Yes
SAN JACINTO VALLEY REGIONAL
WATER RECLAMATION FACI 700 N SANDERSON AVE RCRA-VSQG 0 0 Yes EMWD SAN JACINTO VALLEY RWRF 770 N SANDERSON AVE
CERS HAZ
WASTE,CERS
TANKS,CHMIRS,NP
DES,CIWQS,CERS
0.146 SSE Yes
HEMET SAN JACINTO REG WATER 770 N SANDERSON AVE AST 0.146 SSE Yes SAN JACINTO VALLEY RWRF 770 NORTH SANDERSON RCRA-LQG 0.146 SSE Yes Table 1: Standard Environmental Record Sources (EDR Report) Summary 870 & 1380 N SANDERSON AVENUE SAN JACINTO, CA 92582
Orange: Facility has an associated release case impacting soil only and/or VOCs are not a potential contaminant of concern Notes
Blue: Facility does not have associated database listings indicative of a release or contamination Green: Facility is hydraulically downgradient or crossgradient and/or is a closed release case Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
North Sanderson Avenue, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 432-030-006, 432-030-010, and 432-030-011 San Jacinto, California
2217.0025L103/CVRS ROUX
FIGURES
1. Site Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Site Plan: Former Operations Area
SITE LOCATION MAP
Villages at San Jacinto
870 & 1380 N Sanderson Avenue
San Jacinto, Riverside County, California
1 SHEA PROPERTIES LLC
Prepared for:
Title:
.
Date: 08/04/21 FIGURE
Scale: AS SHOWN
Project:
Prepared by: C.M.
Project Mgr: R.Q.
Compiled by: C.M.
PROPERTY
Service Layer Credits:
Sources: Esri, HERE,
Garmin, Intermap, increment
P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,
FAO, NPS, NRCAN,
1,000 0 1,000'
S:\OFFICE ADMIN\REFERENCE LIBRARY\CM\FIGURE 1 - SAN JACINTO.MXD
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
1 3 4 2 4 APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY APPROXIMATE WATER WELL LOCATION RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION (REC) LEGEND Prepared for: Title: Compiled by:
Prepared by:Project Mgr: File: Date: Project: Scale: ROUX 2 SITE PLAN NORTH SANDERSON AVENUE SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA SHEA PROPERTIES C.J. C.J. R.Q. 30 AUG 2021 AS SHOWN 2217.0025L 001_2217.XXXX_SITE PLAN.DWG S:\CLIENTS\2217.0025L SHEA SAN JACINTO MHE\10CAD\001_2217.XXXX_SITE PLAN.DWG Aerial Image © Microsoft Corporation 2021 # 0' 800' 1600' SEE FIGURE 3 FOR ZOOM OF SOUTHERN PORTION OF SITE GROUNDWATER IRRIGATION WELL GROUNDWATER IRRIGATION WELL DOMESTIC WATER BASIN PRODUCTION WELL FORMER 1,000-GALLON DIESEL AST LOCATION OF FORMER RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURES FORMER HEIFER FARM ABANDONED DRUMS FORMER STRUCTURES(SITEWIDE) (SITEWIDE) 1 3 2 4 5 687 APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY APPROXIMATE WATER WELL LOCATION REC 1 - FORMER HEIFER FARM REC 2 - PETROLEUM-STAINED SOIL REC 3 - POND REC 4 - HISTORICAL AGRICULTURAL USE hREC 5 - HISTORICAL UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS OEF 6 - SEPTIC TANKS OEF 7 - DEBRIS OEF 8 - ABANDONED DRUMS LEGEND 615 Prepared for: Title: Compiled by:
Prepared by:Project Mgr: File: Date: Project: Scale: ROUX 3 SITE PLAN FORMER OPERATIONS AREA NORTH SANDERSON AVENUE SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA SHEA PROPERTIES C.J. C.J. R.Q. 30 AUG 2021 AS SHOWN 2217.0025L 001_2217.XXXX_SITE PLAN.DWG S:\CLIENTS\2217.0025L SHEA SAN JACINTO MHE\10CAD\001_2217.XXXX_SITE PLAN.DWG Aerial Image © Microsoft Corporation 2021 0' 250' 500' GROUNDWATER IRRIGATION WELL DOMESTIC PRODUCTION WELL WATER BASIN FORMER HEIFER FARM ABANDONDED DRUMS FORMER 1,000-GALLON DIESEL AST (SITEWIDE) LOCATION OF FORMER RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURES (SITEWIDE) EXCAVATION AROUND FORMER UST'S 78234 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
North Sanderson Avenue, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 432-030-006, 432-030-010, and 432-030-011 San Jacinto, California
2217.0025L103/CVRS ROUX
APPENDICES
A. Glossary of Terms
B. Historical Topographic Maps
C. Historical Aerial Photographs
D. Certified Sanborn Report
E. EDR City Directory Image Report
F. EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck®
G. Photographic Log
H. Pertinent Historical Documentation
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
North Sanderson Avenue, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 432-030-006, 432-030-010, and 432-030-011 San Jacinto, California
2217.0025L103/CVRS ROUX
APPENDIX G
Photographic Log