HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 3310 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) RESOLUTION NO. 3310
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )ss
CITY OF SAN JACINTO
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN JACINTO CERTIFYING THE FINAL
RECIRCULATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR THE VILLAGES OF SAN JACINTO
SPECIFIC PLAN AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, The Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan ("Project") proposes and
encompasses the following actions: (1) certification of the Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan
and Related General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Tract Map No. 36188, Tentative
Parcel Map No. 36189, and development agreement Final Environmental Impact Report
("FEIR"); (2) approval and adoption of The Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan (File No. SP 1-
04); (3) General Plan Amendment (File No. 5-04) to modify the Land Use Element to designate
475.1 acres as Specific Plan; (4) approval of Change of Zone (File No. 5-04); (5) approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 36188; (6) approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 36189; (7) approval
of a Development Agreement; and (8) any related discretionary approvals; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public
Res. Code, §§ 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §§ 15000 et seq.) and the
City's Local CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Jacinto ("City") is the lead agency for the
Project, as the public agency with the principle responsibility for approving the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City, as lead agency, determined that an Environmental Impact Report
("EIR") should be prepared pursuant to CEQA to analyze all potential adverse environmental
impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located along Sanderson Avenue, south of Ramona
Boulevard, west of Odell Avenue, and north of the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
operated by Eastern Municipal Water District, and consists of approximately 475.1 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Recirculated Draft EIR ("RDEIR") for the Villages at San Jacinto
Specific Plan has been prepared to address the environmental effects of the Project that will
develop a cohesive and attractive community that features residential development for up to
1,042 dwelling units (1,322 if Planning Area 14 is not utilized as a high school), including
detached single-family units on lots ranging from 4,000 to 6,000 square feet in size. Institutional
uses will consist of a high school on approximately 62.2 acres, recreational uses that include
approximately 43 acres of parks, a 5.1 acre clubhouse and swim lagoon, approximately 11 acres
of lake, and commercial uses that consist of approximately 22.7 acres of retail commercial and
26.3 acres of mixed use; and
WHEREAS, the City originally issued a Notice of Preparation("NOP") for The Villages
at San Jacinto on December 27, 2004, and circulated the NOP for a period of 30 days ending on
January 25, 2005,pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, the City solicited
comments from potential responsible agencies, including details about the scope and content of
the environmental information related to the responsible agency's area of statutory responsibility,
as well as the significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures
that the responsible agency would have analyzed in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City received comments from approximately eight (8) agencies in
response to the NOP, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis
in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, after completing the Draft EIR (SCH 2O04122132), the City released the
document for public review for a 45-day public comment period, beginning April 10, 2006 and
running through May 24, 2006, by filing a Notice of Availability with the Clerk of Riverside
County. Following the close of the comment period, significant new information was added to
the Draft EIR, therefore a Recirculated DEIR ("RDEIR") for the Project was released for public
review beginning on January 19, 2007 and running through March 5, 2007, by filing a new
Notice of Availability with the Clerk of Riverside County; and
WHEREAS, in March 2007, a FEIR was prepared to address comments received during
the two public review periods. The City Planning Commission recommended approval of the
project and certification of the FEIR in April 2007. Minor changes in the project description
delayed consideration of the project before the City Council until June 2008, and subsequently
the project was continued in order to respond to questions, comments, and concerns raised at the
June 2008 City Council meeting. Partially in response to City Council comments and current
market demand, the applicant chose to update the Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan and the
Land Use Plan and to recirculate the EIR a second time to adequately notify the public of the
revised project's potential environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Revised Draft EIR Number Two ("RDEIR2") was made available on
August 27, 2009, for public review for a period of 45 days, which ended on October 12, 2009;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092, the City also provided a
Notice of Availability to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested such
notice, and published the Notice of Availability on or about August 27, 2009, in The Press-
Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area. Copies of the RDEIR2 were
provided to interested public agencies, organizations and individuals. In addition, the City
placed copies of the RDEIR2 at the City of San Jacinto Planning Department and the City of San
Jacinto Public Library; and
WHEREAS, during the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR, and the 45-day
comment period on the RDEIR2, the City consulted with and requested comments from all
responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies and others pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines section 15086; and
WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the RDEIR2 the City received
approximately nine(9) written comments, all of which the City responded to in the FEIR; and
WHEREAS, because some environmental impacts identified in the FEIR as potentially
significant cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of
all feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and set forth herein, the City Council has
balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project against its
significant and unavoidable impacts, and has determined that the benefits of the Project outweigh
the unavoidable adverse impacts, and therefore render those impacts "acceptable," and the City
Council has documented its determination regarding significant and unavoidable impacts in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section IX hereof, and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with,
reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including
the FEIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of San Jacinto and
is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City or any
additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information
requiring further recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines,
section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
FINDINGS
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that "public agencies should not approve
projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available
which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]"
Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public
agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such
significant effects."
Agencies comply with section 21002's mandate by adopting findings before approving
projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) The approving agency must make written findings for
each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project and must reach
at least one of three permissible conclusions. The first possible finding is that "[c]hanges or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (State CEQA
Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1).) The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the
4
agency making the finding" and that "[s]uch changes have been adopted by such other agency or
can and should be adopted by such other agency." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd.
(a)(2).) The third potential conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological,
or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final
EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).)
Agencies must not adopt a project with significant environmental impacts if feasible
alternatives or mitigation measures would substantially lessen the significant impacts. Public
Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, social and technological factors." State CEQA Guidelines section 15364
includes "legal" considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (See also Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 565.) Project objectives also inform the
determination of "feasibility." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d
4011 417.) Further, "`feasibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the extent that
desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social,
and technological factors." (Id.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn, v. City of Oakland
(1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) An agency need not, however, adopt infeasible mitigation
measures or alternatives. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subds. (a), (b).) Environmental
impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures.
(Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors(1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.)
Section 21002 requires an agency to "substantially lessen or avoid" significant adverse
environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that "substantially lessen" significant
environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002's requirement.
(Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 ("CEQA does
not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of
feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental
damage from a project to an acceptable level"); Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v.
County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 309 ("[t]here is no requirement that adverse
impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such
would render the project unfeasible").)
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where
feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise
occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are
infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency.
(State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subds. (a), (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated,
"[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a
balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their
constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply
requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v.
Board of Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.)
At a regular city council meeting on February 4, 2010, The City Council determined that
based on all of the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, the FEIR, written and oral
testimony given at meetings and hearings on the Project, and submission of testimony from the
public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated
5
with the Project are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; or (2) potentially
significant and each of these impacts will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance
through the identified mitigation measures; or (3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a
level of less than significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the
identified mitigation measures.
SECTION II
RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines does not require specific findings to address
environmental effects that an EIR identifies as "less than significant" where no mitigation is
required. These findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in Section
5.0 of the Recirculated Draft EIR No. 2 ("RDEIR2") in this Section H. Thus, the City Council
hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than
significant and do not require the imposition of mitigation measures:
5.1. Land Use& Planning
Impact. Will the Project physically divide an established community? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.1-15.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.1-15.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: The Project site's location is in an existing rural area surrounded by land that
currently supports agricultural uses. It is likely to result in a physical division of a relative
contiguous rural area and associated agricultural community. That said, due to existing
residential and commercial land use and zoning designations of the subject site and adjacent
land, and the apparent pattern of pending residential and commercial development proposals in
the vicinity of the Project site, it anticipated that the Project area will experience a pattern of
rural agricultural land use conversion to urban-type uses which would ultimately alleviate
potential land use conflicts between existing agricultural uses and planned residential
development. (RDEIR2 at p. 5.1-15.) Therefore, while the Project will introduce a large
development within an overall rural area, it will not physically divide an established
neighborhood.
Impact: Does the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, zoning, ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.1-15.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.1-16.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: The City requires that a Specific Plan be developed for all projects involving 100
acres or more. Government Code Section 65450 states that a planning agency may "prepare
specific plans for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or part of the area
covered by the general plan." The project, as proposed, will require an amendment to the General
Plan Land Use Map to develop a Specific Plan and modify the land use designations of the
project site to remove the HDR designation from the subject property and to reconfigure the
existing CC, OS, LDR, and MDR land use designations, and school site, consistent with the
distribution of the land uses for the planned development of the proposed Specific Plan. The
proposed Specific Plan is intended to incorporate and implement the comprehensive goals and
policies of the City's General Plan for the more detailed development plan of the Villages of San
Jacinto. The project land use scenario is generally consistent with the latest General Plan Update
Land Use Plan. Therefore, the potential inconsistency with the existing General Plan Land Use
Map is considered less than significant from a Land Use Plan Map perspective. (REDIR at p.
5.1-16.)
Impact: Does the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.1-38.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.1-38.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP) is a comprehensive, long-term habitat conservation program which addresses the
needs of a variety of biological resources. The primary goal of the MSHCP is to develop and
manage sustainable preserve areas within existing and expanding urban areas. The preserve areas
and management efforts contained in the final MSHCP will affect land use planning in the entire
City of San Jacinto area. Section 5.4 of the RDEIR2, Biological Resources, provides an in depth
discussion of the Project's relationship and consistency with the Western Riverside County
MSHCP. (RDEIR2 at p. 5.1-38.)
Impact: Does the Project introduce a land use that is incompatible with existing or proposed
surrounding land uses? (RDEIR2, atp. 5.1-38)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.1-39.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: The Project would potentially result in significant urban/rural land use conflicts
between the planned residential, commercial and mixed use development and existing
agricultural uses surrounding the project site. Such conflicts could include fertilizer and
pesticides application drift into the proposed residential area, residential complaints about noise
7
and dust resulting from site preparation activities associated with adjacent agricultural activities,
and increased trespassing onto agricultural lands. Additional discussion of potential project
impacts associated with rural agricultural and urban residential land use conflicts is included in
Development of the proposed Villages of San Jacinto Specific Plan area is located immediately
adjacent to the Hemet/San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Facility currently owned and
operated by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). New residential development
located near industrial-type facilities such as the wastewater treatment plant can result in
potentially significant land use conflicts derived from residential complaints about noise and
odors generated from plant operations. However, the proposed Specific Plan would designate
land directly adjacent to the wastewater treatment facility as commercial and mixed-use business
park. The commercial and mixed-use areas are buffered from on-site residential land uses by
parks and intervening roadways. The nearest residential lots to the treatment plant would be
located over 1,000 feet from the plant boundary. As such, the proposed Villages of San Jacinto
development incorporates buffers into the development to minimize potential land use impacts
between the proposed residential, commercial development, and the adjacent wastewater
treatment facility. Additional discussion of potential land use conflicts associated with plant
operation odors is included in Section 5.10, Air Quality, and plant operation noise is included in
Section 5.11, Noise. Noise impacts potentially associated with traffic generated by the project are
not expected to result in significant noise impacts along access roads to and within the project
area, as described in Section 5.11. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.1-38, 39.)
Impact: Does the Project have any cumulative impacts on land use? (RDEIR2, at p. 6-2.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: 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. This is likely to create a significant cumulative impact due to
incompatibility of adjacent land uses. That said, although the Project would require a General
Plan amendment and zone change, the Project would not introduce a land use that would 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 6-1 of the RDEIR2 would be
consistent with the proposed City of San Jacinto General Plan Update Land Use Plan which
reflects the future direction of land use form envisioned for this portion of the City. While this
would not eliminate a significant and unavoidable cumulative land use impact, should the
western portion of the City ultimately reflect the intended General Plan land use arrangement, it
is likely that urban/rural land use compatibility issues would diminish. (RDEIR2 at p. 6-2)
5.2 Landform Alteration and Aesthetics:
Impact. Does the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (RDEIR2, at p.
5.2-19)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.2-19)
8
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: The General Plan identifies hillside and mountain views as significant resources
which should be protected and enhanced. Views to mountain backdrops background are
currently available across the site from existing roadways west, north, and south of the site. Due
to the distance of the site from Ramona Expressway and Warren Road, future structural
development of the Villages of San Jacinto would not physically obstruct the distant
"background" views of the San Bernardino or San Jacinto mountain ranges from these roadways.
The skyline and surrounding rural landscape is typical of what motorists experience as they
travel along the adjacent roadways to the project site. However, development of the project may
result in partial obstruction of existing lower mountain views for auto travelers along Sanderson
Avenue, although this would be perceived only for a short distance, as views of the distant
mountains would open up again once they have driven by the development. The project would
not obstruct views of the surrounding mountains as seen from any nearby parks, trails, or other
recreational uses, as these types of uses are not found in close proximity to the project site.
Consequently, the proposed development, including the required 11-foot sound barrier along
Sanderson Avenue (see Section 5.11.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.11-a), will
not result in a significant visual impact to the existing views of the surrounding mountain
backdrops. However, in order to soften the potential visual monotony of a continuous 11-foot
wall along Sanderson Avenue, the wall will be constructed atop a landscaped berm of varying
heights between 3 to 5 feet high, and would have extensive landscaping between the street and
wall to help minimize any perceived visual impact of the wall. Therefore, the wall, combined
with the berm will constitute an 11-foot sound barrier. According to the Specific Plan, this
project frontage along Sanderson Avenue will include a 6-foot meandering sidewalk within a 16-
foot landscaped parkway that features clusters of palm trees, pine trees, background shrubs and
other shrub and ground cover plantings. The project site is not located within or adjacent to a
State Scenic Highway (http://www.dot.ca.gov), and the project would not have a significant
adverse visual impact on existing residences. The project will include an extensive system of
parks and paseos along with landscaping on major internal and adjacent roadways that will
provide a consistent plant theme throughout the project. These elements along with the other
open space enhancements as described above will result in a net visual improvement of the
project site that provides a high quality aesthetically attractive development. Therefore, the
project will not have a significant adverse impact on a scenic vista and no mitigation measures
are required. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.2-19.)
Impact. Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (RDEIR2, at p.
5.2-19.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.2-20.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: While portions of State Route 79 are a designated "scenic highway" by Caltrans,
the Project site would not be visible from State Route 79. Ramona Expressway is not a
designated scenic highway. The Project would therefore not have the potential to damage scenic
9
resources visible to a scenic highway. (Appendix A, at p. 17.) No specific scenic resources such
as rock outcroppings or unique features exist on the Project site and no impacts to such resources
will occur. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.2-20.)
Impact. Does the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.2-20)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.2-20.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: The existing visual quality of the site vanes from very low, for those portions
with structures or other improvements, to moderate, for those areas employed for grass sod
cultivation. However, the most prominent visual feature of the project site, where it is most
visible along Sanderson Road, is vacant agricultural land consisting of weedy invasive species
that have accumulated since the majority of agricultural production was discontinued. The
cultivated agricultural portions are not highly visible from adjacent roadways. Therefore, the
overall visual quality of the project site itself is considered low. (Ibid.)
Implementation of the Project would result in the development of the site with urban uses and
structures including commercial, residential, and school buildings. The character of the site will
be changed from one of mixed agriculture and fallow agriculture fields to one of a
suburban/developed nature. However, the Project includes five parks totaling approximately 40
acres, including three public parks and two private neighborhood parks that provide a significant
open space buffer among developed areas. Other open space amenities include an 11-acre lake
and associated swim lagoon and beach area as well as a system of landscaped trails or "paseos"
that serve as pedestrian linkages between land uses. There will also be extensive landscape
treatments along adjacent highways and internal streets, which include planted medians,parkway
trees, shrubs, and groundeovers, which will enhance the roadways and provide further visual
contrast between proposed uses. Another feature that provides visual transition is a vegetated
detention basin/drainage channel system along the western perimeter of the project site. The
proposed system of open spaces would provide both on-site and off-site visual benefits to
compensate for the loss of existing open space character of the site and surroundings, and would
not conflict with the planned residential, commercial and open space uses in the adjacent
community. (Ibid.)
The project Specific Plan establishes compatible design guidelines including landscape design
for roadways, parks and other common use areas and architectural guidelines for all residences,
commercial and mixed-use development. These guidelines will ensure consistent development
standards throughout the project that will not result in substantially degrading the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project
Description, the project will result in up to 1,322 low and medium density single-family
residences, 22.7 acres of commercial uses, and 26.3 acres of mixed-use development. The
residences will have a variety of architectural styles and will vary between one and two stories
up to a maximum height of 35 feet. Architectural design guidelines will also be used to provide
10
direction and inspiration for final design of the commercial and mixed use portions of the
project. Building masses will be clustered to avoid long straight building facades and variation of
building heights up to a maximum height of 35 feet will be required. Approval and
implementation of the Specific Plan shall constitute compatibility with existing visual character,
and no further mitigation measures are required. (RDEM, at p. 5.2-20-21.)
Impact. Does the Project have a cumulative impact to aesthetics? (RDEIR2, at p. 6-4.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact. (Ibid.)
Explanation: The 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 topographical
features or result in a substantial impediment to scenic views. (Ibid.)
5.3. Agricultural Resources
Impact. Does the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.3-4.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. No
portion of the Project site is currently zoned for agricultural use; therefore, no conflicts are
anticipated to occur with respect to the proposed residential conversion of the property and
existing zoning designations. In addition, the site is not covered by special agricultural status,
such as a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impacts related to agricultural zoning or a
Williamson Act contract would occur. (Ibid.)
5.4. Biological Resources
Impact. Does the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
11
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-23.) Refer to
Section III of the findings for discussion of impacts to migratory bird habitat.
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.4-19.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect large patches of natural open
space and provide avenues for the immigration and emigration of animals. Habitat linkages may
function as wildlife corridors for some species and permanent habitat for others. Wildlife
corridors and habitat linkages contribute to population viability in several ways: (1) they assure
the continual exchange of genes between populations which helps maintain genetic diversity, (2)
they provide access to adjacent habitat areas representing additional territory for foraging and
mating; (3) they allow for a greater carrying capacity of species populations; and (4) they
provide routes for colonization of habitat lands following local population extinctions or habitat
recovery from ecological catastrophes (e.g., fires). As illustrated in Figure 3-3, Site Location
Map of the RDEIR2, the Project study area is surrounded by agricultural lands to the north, east,
and southwest; a water reclamation facility lies to the southeast of the site. Therefore, the Project
study area is not of high importance as a regional wildlife corridor or habitat linkage, i.e., it does
not connect larger habitat areas or provide for regional wildlife movement. Furthermore, the site
is not included a MSHCP Linkage or Constrained Linkage which has been identified constructed
to maintain regional habitat linkages. There will be no impacts to any nursery sites. (Ibid.)
Impact: Does the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-23.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: The Villages of San Jacinto Project is located within the San Jacinto Valley Area
Plan of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). A GIS overlay of MSHCP
San Jacinto Valley Area Criteria Cells with the Villages of San Jacinto project boundary shows
that the Project lies outside of the Criteria Area with the exception of a small overlap of the
southwestern portion of the site with Cells 2775 and 2878. This overlap is approximately 250
feet wide and extends approximately 3,240 feet along the western property boundary. This slight
Cell overlap does not correspond to any observable change in site features such as biological
resources or topography; the site is in active agriculture (turf grass farm) both within and outside
the area of overlap. For this reason, it was agreed (by letter dated November 17, 2008 from
Charles Landry, Executive Director, Western Riverside County Regional Conservation
Authority) that the overlap is a map registration issue, and MSHCP Criteria for Cells 2775 and
2878 would not apply to the Villages of San Jacinto Project but rather to the adjacent parcels to
the west (see Figure 5.4-1, Project Relationship to Western Riverside County MSHCP in the
RDEIR2). However, certain plan-wide requirements would apply to the Project, including habitat
assessments/survey requirements for narrow endemic plant species and burrowing owl. The
Project has also been analyzed for consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.2, Riparian/Riverine
12
Resources. Therefore, the Project will not conflict but will comply with the MSHCP. No other
local policies or ordinances apply. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-2.)
5.5. Cultural Resources:
Impact. Does the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resources as defined in Section 15064.5? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.5-8)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.5-9.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: While the historic structure has many features of a Craftsman-style bungalow, it
has been substantially altered. All cabinets and plumbing fixtures have been destroyed. Interior
walls have been altered by graffiti and many parts of the walls and ceiling have been punctured
with holes that are beyond repair. The original wooden siding has been replaced by unusual
textured pink stucco. In addition, a comer picture window has been inserted at the rear of the
house. The importance of a historic structure is related to survival of characteristics that existed
during the period of significance. Historical resources must retain enough of their character or
appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their
significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The bungalow has been altered to the extent
that it has lost integrity of design, materials, workmanship and feeling. In fact, it is now barely
identifiable as a Craftsman-style bungalow. It is unlikely that the bungalow retains sufficient
integrity to be eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Therefore, a
less than significant impact to this formerly historic resource would occur. (RDEIR2, at pp. 5.5-
8 through 5.5-9.)
Impact. Does the Project have the potential to disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.5-9.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.5-9.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: There are no known human remains within the site or vicinity. Additionally, the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conducted a search of their Sacred Lands File,
but found that Native American cultural resources were not present within one-half mile of the
project area (See Appendix B). However, in the unlikely event human remains are found during
construction activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further
disturbance shall occur in the immediate area until the County Coroner has made the necessary
findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the
13
coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe
that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours,
the NAHC who will then contact the appropriate tribal representative. Should local Native
American groups find that the site supports potential buried ancestral remains, the Soboba
Consulting Services Agreement allows for Native American monitoring during construction.
Consequently, the Project's adherence with the State Health and Safety, Public Resources Codes
and Soboba Consulting Services Agreement shall ensure any potential impacts would be less
than significant. (Ibid.)
5.6. Geology and Soils:
Impact: Is the Project located on expansive soil, as defined in Table I8-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risk to life or property? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-15.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.6-15.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: Expansive soils are those with a significant amount of clay particles that have the
ability to shrink or swell depending on water content. The Geotechnical Report indicated that
based on limited laboratory testing and visual classification, onsite earth materials generally
possess a very low to medium expansion potential; however, high to very high expansive silt and
clay materials may be encountered locally during rough grading. Compliance with
recommendations for ground preparation as outlined in the February 28, 2005, Leighton and
Associates Geotechnical Investigation will reduce risk hazards associated with expansive soils to
a less than significant level. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-15.)
Impact: Does the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater? (RDEM2, at p. 5.6-15.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.6-15.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: The Project does not propose the use of septic tanks or any alternative wastewater
disposal systems. Wastewater disposal services would be provided through connections to a
regional system. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in impacts related to
onsite or alternative wastewater disposal systems. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-20)
14
5.8. Water Ouality and Hydrology
Impact: Will the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.8-14;Appendix A, at p. 28)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: The Water Supply Assessment Report prepared for the project (Appendix K)
indicates that the total projected water demand for the proposed development would remain
within the limits of the projected demand of the Eastern Municipal Water District's Urban Water
Management Plan 2000 (refer to Section 5.12.8 for a detailed discussion of domestic water
supply). The project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces due to the change from
an existing agricultural operation (which supports natural percolation) to that of a suburban
housing/commercial/retail development (which will support pavement and other impervious
surfaces). Although the project would not result in the exact same local groundwater recharge
characteristics, the project drainage plan would facilitate complete retention/detention of water
onsite to mirror pre-development flows. Therefore, during weather events, water will be directed
to the urban drainage system which will collect at the northwest of the site in a detention basin.
This basin will result in the percolation or evaporation of all onsite water which would in effect
help mirror existing, pre-development groundwater recharge. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.8-14, 15.)
5.9. Transportation/Circulation
Impact: Does the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-49.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: The Project site is not located within two miles of a public airport of private use
airport. (Ibid.)
Impact: Does the Project result in inadequate emergency access? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-50.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: The Project will provide a total of seventeen (17) driveways including seven (7)
full access driveways and provides interior circulation patterns to ensure that adequate access
15
and circulation is provided to and throughout the development. Therefore, no significant impacts
related to emergency access would occur. (Ibid.)
Impact: Does the Project result in inadequate parking capacity? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-50.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: The project is designed to have adequate parking for the proposed commercial,
recreational and residential facilities. Parking requirements are set forth in the Villages of San
Jacinto Specific Plan for each Planning Area within the development. Adherence to the project
development standards will ensure that there is adequate parking for each proposed land use. The
school facility, if built, is subject to the standards for parking adopted by the San Jacinto Unified
School District. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-50.)
Impact: Does the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-59.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (Appendix A, at
p. 37.)
Mitigation Measure: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: There is currently no bus routes located on or near the project site. Local transit
service is provided by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) with the nearest route (Route 31)
traveling north-south through the City on State Street approximately two miles east of the site.
Sus stops and or turnouts could be provided in the future, should RTA decide to locate a route
adjacent to the site. One of the goals of the project is to develop a circulation system that meets
projected traffic volumes and accommodates a variety of transportation modes and encourages
alternatives to automobile use within the community. Design features include a series of
landscaped paseos that will serve as pedestrian linkages between land uses. Pedestrian friendly
design is encouraged for the mixed use and commercial portions of the project as well.
Therefore, the project will not conflict with any adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-59.)
5.10. Air Ouality
Impact: Does the Project conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? (RDIER, at p. 5.10-31)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at
p.5.10-32)
16
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: While striving to achieve the NAAQS for ozone and PM 2.5 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
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 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 Project would create an estimated 675 jobs
at full buildout in 2033. Thus, the total employment (10,675) would be within the SCAG
modified 2004 RTP forecast for 2030. Accordingly, the Project's employment would be
accommodated in the forecasts used to prepare the 2007 AQMP.
As described in the RDEIR2's Project Description, implementation of the 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 of the RDEIR2, General Plan
and Specific Plan Comparison, in the RDEIR2's 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 of
17
.the RDEIR2, 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 Project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the AQMP, and this impact would be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at pp.
5.10-31 through 5.10-32.)
Impact: Does the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(RDEIR2,p. 5.10-45.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.10-46.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: 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 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. (RDEIR2, at pp. 5.10-45 through 5.10-46.)
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. (Ibid.)
18
With the possible exception of dry cleaners, the 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 Project would not result in TAC emissions).
Moreover, the 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 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. (Ibid.)
Impact. Would the Project impede or conflict with the emissions reduction targets and
strategies prescribed in or developed to implement AB32? (RDEIR2,p. 5.10-46.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.10-50.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: 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 a 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). (RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-46.)
Construction GHG Emissions.
Emissions from Construction Equipment and Vehicles. Construction of the 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 of the RDEIR2. 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 per year. As shown in
Table 5.10-12 of the RDEIR2, 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 CO 2 equivalent) to 1,771 metric tons per years, peaking in 2014 and
19
2015. Additional detail regarding these calculations is found in Appendix I of the RDEIR2.
(RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-46) 47.)
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, already addresses the potential for 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-47, 48.)
Operational GHG Emissions. Development of the 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." (RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-48.)
Emissions from Motor Vehicles. Annual CO 2 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 of the RDEIR2, 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 of the RDEIR2,
Estimated Proposed Project Operational Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Additional details
regarding these calculations are found in Appendix I of the RDEIR2. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-48.)
Emissions from Natural Gas Combustion and Landscape Maintenance. Annual CO 2 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 (CCAR2009) 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 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 of the RDEIR2 under the business-as-usual
20
and Project scenarios, respectively. Additional details regarding these calculations are found in
Appendix I of the RDEIR2. URBEMIS 2007 estimates the CO 2 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. (RDEIR2, at
p. 5.10-48,49.)
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 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). 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 of the RDEIR2 show the estimated
emissions of GHGs associated with electrical use under the business as-usual and proposed
project scenarios, respectively. Additional details regarding these calculations are found in
Appendix I of the RDEIR2. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-49.)
Emissions from Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment. Water supplied to the 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 Project would use reclaimed water from EMWD's San Jacinto
wastewater treatment plant. Tables 5.10-13 and 5.10-14 of the RDEIR2 show the estimated
GHG emissions associated with water provided to the Project users under the business-as-usual
and Project scenarios, respectively. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-49, 50.)
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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-50.)
Tables 5.10-13 and 5.10-14 of the RDEIR2 show the estimated emissions of GHGs associated
with water supply and wastewater treatment under the business-as-usual and Project scenarios,
respectively. Additional details regarding these calculations are found in Appendix I of the
RDEIR2. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-50.)
21
Table 5.10-13 of the RDEIR2 lists the operational emission sources of GHGs for the Project.
The Project is estimated to result in GHG emissions of approximately 49,650 metric tons CO2E.
While the 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). (RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-50.)
Cumulative Analysis: Global Climate Change. Based on the analysis in Table 6.0-2 of the
RDEIR2, the 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 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 of the RDEIR2, 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,
the City agrees with the conclusion of the RDEIR2 that the Project would not impede or conflict
with the emissions reduction targets and strategies prescribed in or developed to implement AB
32. Therefore, the Project would not cause or contribute to any cumulatively considerable
adverse impacts to global climate change. (RDEIR2, at p. 6-24.)
5.11. Noise
Impact: Is the Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, public use airport or private airstrip, such
that it will expose people residing or working in the Project vicinity to excessive noise levels?
(RDEIR2 at p 7-2;Appendix A, at p. 33.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: The Project is not located within an airport land use plan, and is not within two
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. (Ibid.)
22
Impact: Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne nose levels? (RDEIR2 at p. 5.11-17.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: 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.
(Ibid.)
5.12. Public Services and Utilities
Impact: 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? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-14)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.12-15.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: The Project 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 measure 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. Further detail is
provided in the RDEIR2 section 5.12.4. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-15.)
Impact: Will the Project result in (1) a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the Project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the
Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments; (2) exceed
wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; or
(3) require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
23
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental
effects? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-20.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.12-22.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: 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,
maintaining a typical daily treatment flow of 7.8 million gallons a day (MGD) and a raw sewage
treatment capacity of I 1 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-20.)
Wastewater production of the Project would be conveyed via onsite 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 onsite sewer
infrastructure improvements including 10-30 inch sewer lines that will gravity flow via the
proposed internal roadways to the onsite portion of Ramona Boulevard and then to the existing
De Anza lift station, which will then be forced to the Hemet/San Jacinto Regional Water
Reclamation Facility for treatment (see Figure 5.12-2 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Facilities of the
RDEIR2). (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-20-21.)
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 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 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 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.
24
• 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-20-21.)
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. (Ibid.)
Impact: Will the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (RDEIR2, at
p. 5.12-38.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.12-41.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: 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 at
RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-25-41.)
The 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 such as domestic water supply are provided in
25
conjunction with build-out of the development. Therefore, impacts to domestic water supply
systems and supplies would be less than significant. (RDEIR2, p. 5.12-41.)
5.13. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact: Does the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.13-9)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.13-9.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: Construction of the 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. Therefore, significant
impacts are not anticipated to occur. (Ibid.) (Appendix A, at p. 25.)
Impact: 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?
(RDEIR2, at p. 5.13-12)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: 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. (Ibid.)
Impact: Is the Project 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, create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?.(RDEIR2, at p. 5.13-12.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.13-12.)
Mitigation Measure: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
26
Explanation: 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
and onsite. 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 the RDEIR2. (RDEIR2 at p. 5.13-8;
See also Appendix L of the RDEIR2.)
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 Project site. (Ibid.)
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. (Ibid.)
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. (Ibid.)
Section 5.13.2 of the RDEIR2 discusses these surveys in more detail. It was determined that the
Project is not 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, it would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.13-12.)
Impact: Is the 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 or private airstrip and
would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project vicinity? (RDEIR2,
at p. 5.13-12)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (Ibid.; Appendix
A, at p. 26.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: The Project would not subject users to safety hazards associated with public or
private airports, and no airports are located within two miles of the Project site. (Ibid.)
Impact: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.13-12.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (]bid.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: 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. Consequently, there is no additional
mitigation measure required and impacts by the Project will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Impact: Does 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? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.13-13.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.13-14.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: The Project site is surrounded by predominantly agricultural uses and is not
located near wildlands. (RDEIR2, at p. 4-1.)
Impact: Does the Project have cumulative impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials?
(RDEIR2, at p. 6-6)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p. 6-
6.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: Hazards associated with redevelopment of the Project would be mitigated onsite.
Each cumulatively considerable Project would also be subject to similar on-site mitigation
measures thereby eliminating the need for concern of region wide hazards. (Ibid.)
Section 7.2: Issues Found Not to Be Significant
A. Mineral Resources
Impact: Will the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the State; or will the Project result in the loss of a
28
locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan? (RDEIR2, at p. 7-1;Appendix A, at p. 32.)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. Further, the
Project will not cause or contribute to any cumulatively considerable adverse impact to Mineral
Resources. (Ibid.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: 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 is significant mineral deposits within the area, however
the significance of the deposits have yet to be determined (County of Riverside, 2003, pg. OS-26
and Figure OS-5). (Ibid.)
The Project site is underlain by alluvial materials comprised of inter-bedded sands and silts
(Leighton and Associates, March 2004). Mineral resources are generally comprised of gravel,
sand, and rock materials. The site therefore does not support mineral resources that are
considered to be of high value. (Ibid.)
B. Population/Housing
Impact: Does the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (RDEIR2, at p. 7-1)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. Further, the
Project will not cause or contribute to any cumulatively considerable adverse impact to
Population/Housing. (Ibid.)
Mitigation Measures: No Project-specific mitigation measures are required for this particular
impact.
Explanation: 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 new residential units on the site. Therefore, significant
impacts related to population and housing displacement would not occur. (Ibid.)
SECTION III
IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council hereby finds that mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that will
avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less
than significant level. This section also sets out in greater detail specific impacts that were
29
determined to be less than significant even without the implementation of mitigation measures,
but further mitigation measures are proposed to lessen the impact even further. The potentially
significant impacts and the mitigation measures which will reduce them to a less than significant
level are set out in the EIR and summarized below.
5.2 Landform Alteration and Aesthetics:
Impact. Does the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.2-21)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant
level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (RDEIR2,
at p. 5.2-21.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to glare to a less than significant impact level.
5.2-a. To avoid light and glare impacts, future submittals for public park facilities that adjoin
residential portions of the project development shall be required to prepare a lighting plan. The
lighting plan shall demonstrate that project lighting is shielded from surrounding residential
properties and that only the minimum amount of lighting required for recreational purposes is
provided to avoid adverse effects on adjoining residential areas. In general, lighting fixtures shall
be shielded downward and away from adjacent residential uses and public roadways.
Commercial development plans shall also be reviewed by the City to ensure the avoidance of
substantial areas of reflective surfaces for building exteriors. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.2-22.)
5.2-b. 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) that there may be lighted ball fields in the future should
the school district proceed with plans for the proposed high school. (Ibid.)
Explanation: The Project would introduce additional night lighting within the project vicinity
as well as potential new sources of glare (i.e., glass and reflective exterior surfaces). Particularly
the recreational components of the site have the potential to produce significant night lighting
impacts upon adjacent uses in the vicinity as well as proposed residential land uses within the
project itself. Additionally, the Project will require street lighting, trail lighting, and lighting
associated with commercial activities. The Specific Plan requires that there are uniform lighting
standards throughout the Project and that lighting along trails shall be a minimum of 20-feet
from rear or side yards to reduce light spill-over effects. All exterior lights are required to be
shielded and focused to minimize spill light into the night sky or adjacent properties. Should
Planning Area 14 be purchased by the San Jacinto Unified School District for development as a
high school, any potential light or glare impacts would need to be addressed by the School
District in the course of their environmental compliance for that project. However, a mitigation
measure has been added. (see Mitigation Measure 5.2-b) which requires notification of
homeowners in the vicinity of the school site that there may be lighted ball fields in the future
30
should the school district proceed with plans for the proposed high school. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.2-
21.)
Metal or other reflective exterior surfaces and finishes within the commercial components of the
site could create new sources of light or glare resulting in significant glare impacts for adjacent
residential, park, and agricultural uses. Mitigation is provided to reduce this potential impact to a
less than significant level. (see Mitigation Measure 5.2-a). (Ibid.)
Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts to Landform Alteration and Aesthetics by the Project
will be less than significant. The 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 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 6-13, 14.)
Refer to Section 5.2 of the RDEIR2 for additional detail. With the incorporation of the
mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to
Landform Alteration and Aesthetics are not considered significant.
5.4. Biological Resources:
Impact. Will the Project have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Game, or US Fish & Wildlife Service? (RDEIR2 at p. 5.4-20.)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant
level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
5.4-b Per MSHCP, because of the site does not support long term conservation value for
burrowing owls, mitigation for impacts to this pair of owls may include passive or active
relocation of owls following accepted protocols per the Burrowing Owl Species Account in
Volume II-B of the MSHCP. In addition, MSHCP states that "Pre-construction presence/absence
surveys for burrowing owl within the survey area where suitable habitat is present will be
conducted for all Covered Activities through the life of the permit. Surveys will be conducted
31
within 30 days prior to disturbance. Take of active nests will be avoided. Passive relocation (use
of one way doors and collapse of burrows) will occur when owls are present outside the nesting
season." (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-28.)
Because impacts to other sensitive wildlife species are covered under the MSHCP, no additional
mitigation is proposed for impacts to these species. However, if construction activity is to take
place during the breeding season (i.e., January through October), a one-time biological survey
for nesting bird species would be conducted within the proposed impact area no earlier than 72
hours prior to construction. This survey is necessary to assure avoidance of impacts to nesting
native birds (per the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act). If nesting birds are detected within
vegetation which is to be impacted, the nest location(s) will be protected. A buffer of 25 to 300
feet(specific width to be determined by the project biologist according to species of bird) around
the nest will be avoided until fledging. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-28.)
Explanation: No sensitive reptiles or amphibians were observed on site, and no state- or
federally-listed reptiles or amphibians are expected to occur. Three sensitive mammal species or
their sign were observed on site: black-tailed jackrabbit, bobcat and coyote, all are covered
species in the MSHCP (see full discussion in the RDEIR2 of consistency with the MSHCP). No
sensitive invertebrate species were observed on site during general wildlife surveys or are
expected to occur within the Project study area due to lack of suitable habitat. No sensitive fish
species were observed on site during general wildlife surveys or are expected to occur within the
project study area due to lack of suitable habitat. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-20.)
Focused surveys for the western burrowing owl were conducted per MSHCP requirements for
the Project site, which is located within the Burrowing Owl Survey Area. One pair of burrowing
owls and several burrows were observed during the surveys. The pair is assumed to be nesting
onsite. (See Mitigation Measure 5.4-b).
Two individuals of Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), a state-listed threatened species, were
observed perched on trees within the site (Figure 5.4-2 of the RDEIR2). Ferruginous hawk,
northern harrier, and horned lark were observed foraging within the study area; the loggerhead
shrike, a federal species of concern and California Special Concern (CSC) species, was observed
nesting and foraging onsite (Figure 5.4-2 of the RDEIR2). White-tailed kite and turkey vulture
were observed foraging onsite (Figure 5.4-2 of the RDEIR2). White-faced ibis was observed
flying over the site during one survey visit. All of these species are covered species in the
MSHCP. (RDEIR2 at p. 5.4-21.)
In addition to these sensitive species observed, the great blue heron, prairie falcon, peregrine
falcon, merlin and mountain plover could all utilize habitat onsite during winter months. All of
these species are covered species in the MSHCP. Western bluebird (sometimes considered
sensitive by local environmental groups) also has a potential to forage onsite during the winter
months. Western bluebird is not a MSHCP covered species. (RDEIR2 at p. 5.4-14.)
Three sensitive mammal species or their sign were observed onsite: black-tailed jackrabbit,
bobcat, and coyote, all are covered species in the MSHCP. Three additional species were
assumed to utilize habitat onsite, although were not observed: long-tailed weasel, gray fox and
brush rabbit. Brush rabbit is a covered species in the MSHCP while long-tailed weasel and gray
fox are not. (Ibid.)
32
While the Project supports numerous wetland and water habitat, the man-made nature of these
resources (largely for use in agricultural operations) eliminate them from being characterized as
riparian/riverine per the MSHCP. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the MSHCP in
terms of preservation of riparian/riverine resources. Suitable habitat on the Project site was
surveyed for sensitive fairy shrimp species. While common fairy shrimp species were observed
in onsite habitat, sensitive fairy shrimp species were not observed. Therefore, the Project would
be consistent with MSHCP fairy shrimp survey and conservation directives. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-
23.)
Suitable habitat was surveyed for all NEPSA 3 plant species. None of these species were
observed onsite, therefore the Project would not conflict with MSHCP narrow endemic survey
and conservation requirements. Two sensitive plant species, Coulter's goldfields (seven
individuals) and smooth tarplant (approximately 170 individuals), were observed within the
proposed impact area. Coulter's goldfields and smooth tarplant are covered species under the
MSHCP but are not considered narrow endemic species by the MSHCP plan. These plants would
be directly impacted by the Project. Impacts to these species would not be considered significant;
the loss of 170 individuals of smooth tarplant and seven individuals of Coulter's goldfields are
relatively small impacts to these species, which are fairly well distributed throughout the
MSHCP plan area. In addition, these species are not MSHCP narrow endemic plants, and
impacts to these species on the Villages of San Jacinto Project Site do not require any project-
specific conservation measures. (Ibid.)
One pair of burrowing owls was observed onsite. The Project's impacts to these species are
covered in accordance with the Species Conservation Objectives for the burrowing owl listed in
the MSHCP. The Project site does not support long-term conservation value for burrowing owl
because of limited occupation of the species on the site. That said, in order to comply with the
specific Burrowing Owl Survey Area provisions of the MSHCP, passive relocation to avoid
direct impacts to known individuals will be required. In order to comply with MSHCP
Burrowing Owl requirements, mitigation is provided. (See Mitigation Measure 5.4-b). (RDEIR2,
at p. 5.4-24.)
Impact. Does the Project have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-22)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant
level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
5.4-a: Mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and non-wetlands waters as required by
RWQCB and CDFG, will consist of (1) off-site creation, (2) a combination of off-site creation
and enhancement of wetlands of equal or higher habitat quality, or (3) purchase of wetlands
33
mitigation credits in an approved mitigation bank. Purchase of wetlands mitigation credits for
impacts to RWQCB- and CDFG-jurisdictional waters would be purchased from a mitigation
bank approved by RWQCB and CDFG for the use of mitigation for impacts to RWQCB- and
CDFG jurisdictional waters. Because wetlands/waters on the Villages of San Jacinto project site
are isolated, of low overall quality (contain large quantities of non-native species), and are
surrounded by agricultural lands, they do not provide high quality habitat for riparian-dependant
wildlife species, therefore mitigation onsite would not result in equal or greater wetland habitat
value. Mitigation for on-site wetlands/waters impacts would be a biologically equivalent or
superior alternative to avoidance of these impacts. The above not withstanding, wetlands areas
created, enhanced, or preserved through the project's wetlands mitigation plan would be
connected to other wetlands/riparian/riverine areas and would provide overall biological value to
the peregrine falcon and other sensitive wildlife and plant species. Wetland mitigation ratios are
based on past experience developing appropriate mitigation for impacts to similar wetland and/or
Waters of the State. The impacts to the jurisdiction wetlands and non-wetlands waters will
require permits and coordination with the CDFG and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Prior to issuance of grading permits for areas that impact jurisdictional waters, the property
owner shall provide evidence that all required regulatory permits are obtained, such as those
required under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code and the Porter Cologne
Water Quality Act. (FEIR, at p. 4-1.)
• Herbaceous Wetlands, Open Water, Freshwater Marsh and Intermittent Stream
Channel. Mitigation for impacts to 4.22 acres of open water, 0.23 acre of freshwater
marsh, 0.21 acre of herbaceous wetlands, and 0.01 acre of intermittent unvegetated
stream channel would be accomplished through the creation or purchase of wetlands
mitigation credits from an approved mitigation bank at a 1:1 ration (i.e., 4.67 acres total
(See Table 5.4-5 in the Final EIR). (FEIR, at p. 4-2.)
• Cismontane Alkali Marsh. Mitigation for impacts to 0.01 acre of cismontane alkali
marsh would be accomplished at a 3:1 ratio through the creation of wetlands at minimum
ration of 1:1 and the combination of creation and enhancement, or wetlands of equal or
higher habitat quality at a 2:1 ration (i.e., 0.03). Mitigation can also be accomplished
through the purchase of wetlands mitigation credits in an approved mitigation bank.
(FEIR, at p. 4-2.)
• Southern Willow Woodland Mitigation for impacts to 0.07 acre of southern willow
woodland would be required at a ratio of 4:1 (i.e., 0.28) (See Section 5.4 of the RDEIR).
Mitigation will be accomplished through the creation of wetlands at a minimum ratio of
1:1, and the combination of creation and enhancement of wetlands of equal or higher
habitat quality. Mitigation can also be accomplished through the purchase of wetland
mitigation credits in an approved mitigation bank. (FEIR, at p. 4-2.)
• A wetlands mitigation plan will be prepared an submitted to the California Department
of Fish and Game and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for review. The
mitigation plan will, at a minimum, include the following measures:
o Creation of habitat will be in-kind and occur at suitable sites in or adjacent to
stream courses, in areas where there are appropriate hydrologic conditions to
create self-sustaining riparian/wetlands habitat. All mitigation sites will contain
suitable surrounding land uses that are compatible with self-sustaining
functioning riparian vegetation community.
o Mitigation will occur within the vicinity of the project impacts.
34
o The mitigation will have similar dominant trees and understory shrubs and herbs
(excluding exotic species) to those of the impact communities. In addition, the
mitigation habitat will be destined to emulate the density and structure of the
impacted habitat.
o Each tree and shrub species used in restoration shall have a minimum of 80%
survivorsh9p after 3 years and 70% survivorship after 5 years. Natural
recruitment of native species may be used to offset percent survivorship of planted
trees and shrubs to achieve native vegetation cover standards. (FEIR, at p. 4-3.)
o Minimum growth, survivorship, and cover performance at the mitigation site(s)
will be measured based on random samples taken during years 3 and 5 or at
other sampling intervals if an agency-approved (i.e., California Department of
Fish and Game) alternative methodology is used. If the minimum growth,
survivorship, and/or cover are not achieved at the time of the 3- and 5- year
evaluations. Then the developer will be responsible for taking the appropriate
corrective measures to achieve the specified growth, survivorship, and/or cover
criteria.
o A mitigation status report will be submitted to the California Department of Fish
and Game annually for the life of the permits or until 5 years after all mitigation
has been completed. This report will include any required plans for plant
spacing, locations of candidate restoration and weed control sites, restoration
methods, and restoration performance standards. For active mitigation sites, the
report shall include the survival,percent cover, and height of planted species; the
number by species of plants replaced; an overview of the mitigation effort and its
success in meeting performance criteria; the method used to assess these
parameters; and photographs.
o The developer will provide funding for the 5-years maintenance and monitoring
period for the mitigation site along with an endowment for long0-term
management of the mitigation site. (FEIR, at p. 4-3.)
Explanation: Southern Willow Woodland. Southern willow woodland is similar to the southern
willow scrub plant community described by Holland (1986) as "dense, broadleafed, winter-
deciduous riparian thickets dominated by several species of Salix [willows], with scattered
emergent Populus fremontii [Freemont cottonwood] and Platanus racemosa [western
sycamore]." The understory is usually depauperate owing to the dense canopy. The 0.07-acre
area of the study site mapped as southern willow woodland consists of a small group of larger,
more mature Goodding's black willows (Salix gooddingii) with an open understory. Soils within
this vegetation type are hydric (Chroma 1), and evidence of hydrology exists as water stained
leaves and drainage patterns. This habitat is fed by two one-foot pipes that outlet onto the
property along the southern boundary. (Ibid.) However, since this wetland habitat type is not
connected to navigable Waters of the U.S., it is not under the jurisdiction of the ACOE.
(RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-6-7.) Southern willow woodland onsite is under the jurisdiction of CDFG and
RWQCB only. None of the areas mapped as southern willow woodland onsite would be
classified as MSHCP riparian/riverine since there were artificially created. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-
9.)
Cismontane Alkali Marsh. According to Holland (1986), vegetation classified as cismontane
alkali marsh occurs in areas of alkaline soils that are saturated or inundated during most of the
year. Characteristic species often in cismontane alkali marsh include yerba mansa (Anemopsis
35
californica), sedges, salt grass, rushes, alkali heath (Frankenia salina), cattails, salt marsh
fleabane (Pluchea purpurascens), and cattails. Species dominating the 0.01-acre patch of
cismontane alkali marsh along the southern property boundary include salt grass, alkali-mallow
(Malvella leprosa), and salt heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum). None of the areas mapped
as cismontane alkali marsh onsite would be classified as MSHCP riparian/riverine since they
were artificially created. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-9, 10.)
Disturbed Herbaceous Wetlands. Herbaceous wetlands were mapped in association with the
northern detention basin onsite. Herbaceous wetlands support a predominance of low,
herbaceous, hydrophytic vegetation. Within this 0.05-acre habitat type onsite, yellow nutsedge
(Cyperus esculentus), a hydrophytic species, dominates the cover. Drainage patterns are evident,
and soils are considered hydric (Chroma 2 with mottles). This habitat type lacks a surface
connection to navigable Waters of the U.S., however, and thus is under the jurisdiction of CDFG
and RWQCB only. Disturbed herbaceous wetlands were also mapped in an area dominated by
the non-native perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium). No indicators of hydrology are
present, and soils are not hydric (Chroma 2 without mottles), so disturbed herbaceous wetlands
onsite are under the jurisdiction of CDFG only. A total of 0.16 acre of disturbed herbaceous
wetlands are present onsite. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-20-21.) None of the areas mapped as disturbed
herbaceous wetlands onsite would be classified as MSHCP riparian/riverine since there were
artificially created. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-9.)
Direct impacts from the Project were calculated and are shown in Table 5.4-4 of the RDEIR2,
Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters (Including Wetlands) Present on the Villages of San Jacinto
Project Site). As is shown in the table, all biological resources within the Project boundaries
were considered 100% lost. This includes 4.22 acres of open water, 0.23 acre of freshwater
marsh, 0.07 acre of southern willow woodland, 0.03 acre of herbaceous wetlands (including 0.18
acre of disturbed herbaceous wetlands) and 0.01 acre of intermittent unvegetated stream channel.
Mitigation is provided to reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. (see
Mitigation Measure 5.4-a). (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-22.)
Impact. (1) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and (2) Does the
Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation
plan? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-23.)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant
level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
5.4-b Per MSHCP, because of the site does not support long term conservation value for
burrowing owls, mitigation for impacts to this pair of owls may include passive or active
36
U
Riparian/Riverine Resources. (RDEIR2 at p. 5.4-2.) Therefore, with appropriate mitigation, the
Project will comply with the MSHCP and any impacts will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at
p. 5.4-22.)
Sensitive Habitats. Sensitive habitats are those that are considered rare within the region, support
sensitive plant and/or wildlife species, function as corridors for wildlife movement, or are
regulated by local, state or federal agencies. Habitat types found onsite that are considered
sensitive include open water, freshwater marsh, southern willow woodland, disturbed herbaceous
wetland, cismontane alkali marsh and intermittent unvegetated stream channel. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.4-12.)
MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas, Vernal Pools and Fairy Shrimp Habitat. No MSHCP
riparian/riverine areas or vernal pools were located onsite. However, some water resources onsite
were initially determined potentially suitable for threatened or endangered species of fairy
shrimp; therefore, focused veinal pool branchiopod (i.e., fairy shrimp) surveys were conducted.
No sensitive species of fairy shrimp were found onsite(see Table 5.4-2 of the RDEIR2). (Ibid.)
Open Water. Open water (i.e., pond) is a type of aquatic area that typically lacks emergent
vegetation but supports hydrophytic vegetation, such as mule fat scrub, southern willow scrub,
and freshwater marsh around its margins. Ponds represent an important resource for a variety of
migratory waterfowl and provide habitat for amphibians and numerous species of aquatic insects.
Areas of open water, in concert with the surrounding riparian vegetation, may receive
considerable use by species more typical of upland habitats during the drier times of the year.
Three areas of open water totaling 4.22 acres are present within the study area: two detention
basins -- one along the northern property boundary and one along the southwestern property
boundary-- and one shallow depression along the southeastern property boundary. At the time of
the wetlands delineation, these areas were filled with water and supported a variety of waterfowl.
Since the areas of open water onsite have no connection to navigable Waters of the U.S., they are
under the jurisdiction of CDFG and RWQCB only. None of these areas mapped as open water
onsite would be classified as MSHCP riparian/riverine since they were artificially created.
(RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-6.)
Freshwater Marsh. Freshwater marsh is a wetland habitat type that develops where the water
table is at or just above the ground surface, such as around the margins of lakes, ponds,
slowmoving streams, ditches, and seepages. It typically is dominated by tall, emergent monocots,
such as cattail (Typha sp.) and bulrush (Scirpus sp.). Freshwater marsh onsite is located around
the perimeters of the detention basins and along the intermittent stream channel along the
southern boundary of the site. This vegetation community occupies 0.23 acre and is dominated
by cattails and bulrushes. Freshwater marsh onsite is under the jurisdiction of CDFG and
RWQCB only. None of the areas mapped as freshwater marsh onsite would be classified as
MSHCP riparian/riverine since there were artificially created. (Ibid.)
Southern Willow Woodland. Southern willow woodland is similar to the southern willow scrub
plant community described by Holland (1986) as "dense, broadleafed, winter-deciduous riparian
thickets dominated by several species of Salix [willows], with scattered emergent Populus
fremontii [Freemont cottonwood] and Platanus racemosa [western sycamore]." The understory
is usually depauperate owing to the dense canopy. The 0.07-acre area of the study site mapped as
southern willow woodland consists of a small group of larger, more mature Goodding's black
38
willows (Salix gooddingii) with an open understory. Soils within this vegetation type are hydric
(Chroma 1), and evidence of hydrology exists as water stained leaves and drainage patterns. This
habitat is fed by two one-foot pipes that outlet onto the property along the southern boundary.
(Ibid.) However, since this wetland habitat type is not connected to navigable Waters of the U.S.,
it is not under the jurisdiction of the ACOE. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-6-7.) Southern willow woodland
onsite is under the jurisdiction of CDFG and RWQCB only. None of the areas mapped as
southern willow woodland onsite would be classified as MSHCP riparian/riverine since there
were artificially created. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-9.)
Cismontane Alkali Marsh. According to Holland (1986), vegetation classified as cismontane
alkali marsh occurs in areas of alkaline soils that are saturated or inundated during most of the
year. Characteristic species often in cismontane alkali marsh include yerba mansa (Anemopsis
californica), sedges, salt grass, rushes, alkali heath (Frankenia salina), cattails, salt marsh
fleabane (Pluchea purpurascens), and cattails. Species dominating the 0.01-acre patch of
cismontane alkali marsh along the southern property boundary include salt grass, alkali-mallow
(Malvella leprosa), and salt heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum). None of the areas mapped
as cismontane alkali marsh onsite would be classified as MSHCP riparian/riverine since they
were artificially created. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-9, 10.)
Unvegetated Intermittent .Stream Channel. Unvegetated channel refers to the intermittent
drainage connecting several small patches of wetlands vegetation south of the detention basin
along the southern boundary of the site. Intermittent waters generally have a surface flow that,
although not perennial, may be present for relatively long periods (greater than 24 hours)
following rainfall events. Intermittent waters onsite vary from two to three feet in diameter and
occupy 0.01 acre of the project site. These channels are under the jurisdiction of CDFG and
RWQCB. None of the areas mapped as intermittent stream channel onsite would be classified as
MSHCP riparian/riverine since there were artificially created. No Project-specific mitigation
measures are required for this particular impact. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-10.)
Disturbed Herbaceous Wetlands. Herbaceous wetlands were mapped in association with the
northern detention basin onsite. Herbaceous wetlands support a predominance of low,
herbaceous, hydrophytic vegetation. Within this 0.05-acre habitat type onsite, yellow nutsedge
(Cyperus esculentus), a hydrophytic species, dominates the cover. Drainage patterns are evident,
and soils are considered hydric (Chroma 2 with mottles). This habitat type lacks a surface
connection to navigable Waters of the U.S., however, and thus is under the jurisdiction of CDFG
and RWQCB only. Disturbed herbaceous wetlands were also mapped in an area dominated by
the non-native perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium). No indicators of hydrology are
present, and soils are not hydric (Chroma 2 without mottles), so disturbed herbaceous wetlands
onsite are under the jurisdiction of CDFG only. A total of 0.16 acre of disturbed herbaceous
wetlands are present onsite. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-20-21.) None of the areas mapped as disturbed
herbaceous wetlands onsite would be classified as MSHCP riparian/riverine since there were
artificially created. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-9.)
Indirect impacts to adjacent vegetation communities primarily would result from adverse "edge
effects". For the Project, the potential indirect impacts resulting from construction activities
include dust, noise, and general human presence that may temporarily (or in the case of general
human presence, permanently) disrupt species and habitat vitality and lead to construction-
related soil erosion and runoff. However, all Project grading will be subject to the typical
39
restrictions (e.g., Best Management Practices) and requirements that address erosion and runoff,
including the federal Clean Water Act, NPDES, and preparation of a SWPPP. In addition, as the
site is surrounded by agriculture and an EMWD water reclamation facility, impacts to sensitive
vegetation types adjacent to the project site are highly unlikely. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.4-26.)
Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts to Biological Resources by the Project will be less
than significant. 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. (Ibid.)
Refer to Section 5.4 of the RDEIR2 and Section 4 of the FEIR for additional detail. With the
incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts to Biological Resources are not considered significant.
5.5 Cultural Resources
Impact. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.5-9)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant
level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
5.5-a: In order to reduce the potential for disturbance or damage to unknown archaeological
resources, monitoring of grading by a qualified archaeologist during construction is required.
Should the monitor observe disturbance of resources that could be important archaeological
artifacts, the monitor shall have the power to stop grading in the immediate area of discovery in
order to allow for a resource study and recovery/curation effort (if necessary) to occur.
(RDEIR2, at p. 5.5-9 through 5.5-10.)
Explanation: No significant archeological resources were identified within the Project by either
a records search or survey. One previously recorded historic structure and two newly identified
isolated prehistoric artifacts were identified by the survey. Five previously recorded sites are
located within one mile of the Project. Due to the presence of these resources and the fact that
40
the Project is located within an alluvial setting, potentially significant archeological resources
could be unearthed during site grading. Mitigation will lessen this impact to a less than
significant level. (see Mitigation Measure 5.5-a). (Ibid.)
Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts to Cultural Resources by the Project will be less than
significant. 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. (Ibid.)
Refer to Section 5.5 of the RDEIR2 for additional detail. With the incorporation of the
mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to
Cultural Resources are not considered significant.
5.6. Geology and Soils
Impact. Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the following:
• Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known Fault?
• Strong seismic ground shaking?
• Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
• Landslides? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-13.)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant
level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
5.6-b To facilitate the grading operations, onsite irrigation water should be reduced or ceased for
a period of 3 to 6 months prior to the start of grading. Further, the contractor should pothole the
upper 12 to 14 feet of soil prior to the start of grading operations to determine if shallow
groundwater will affect the planned grading. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-16.)
In localized areas where shallow groundwater conditions exist such that removals cannot be
performed to the recommended depths or where deeper excavations (such as in the proposed
"lake" areas) are proposed at or below the existing perched groundwater, methods of localized
dewatering may be required. Alternative ground stabilization methods such as deep dynamic
compaction may be considered. Deep dynamic compaction is a means of physically compacting
the subsurface soils by repeatedly dropping a heavy weight (typically a large concrete block) to
41
densify the underlying soils to a predetermined density. After proposed grading plans are
developed, these areas should be further reviewed by a qualified geotechnical engineer. (Ibid.)
5.6-c A structural setback zone of 50 feet on either side of the encountered fault zone, and as
much as 75 feet on the "down-block" side shall be observed for structures intended for human
occupancy (2,000 hours/year). This preliminary setback zone should be refined as the grading
concept is developed and possible additional site studies are performed. The Fault Location Map
(Plate 2) within the Fault Investigation shows recommended preliminary structural setbacks.
However, the final setback limits should be determined during grading or future studies as the
fault trace is exposed, identified and surveyed for lateral and vertical location (see Figure 5.6-5
Land Use Plan with Geotechnical Setbacks of the RDEIR2). The setbacks should be shown on
all project plans. (Ibid.)
To reduce the effects and magnitude of the earthquake-induced settlements, remedial grading
shall occur. Following remedial grading, differential dynamic settlements are anticipated to be
approximately 2 inches in a horizontal distance of 40 feet. Additional analysis should be
performed by a qualified geotechnical specialist to further refine earthquake-induced settlement.
Based on a review of the rough grading plans by a qualified geotechnical specialist, remedial
grading recommendations may be revised. (Ibid.)
To reduce the potential adverse secondary seismic effects, mitigation of compressible alluvial
soils to support the planned development at areas such as free-face slopes ("green belt" detention
basins, channels etc.), the project perimeter (where removals may be limited by property
restraints) and planned lake areas will require additional geotechnical stability design by a
qualified geotechnical engineer after project plans are developed. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-19.)
5.6-e: To reduce the potential for liquefaction and earthquake-induced settlements at the site, the
following recommendations should be implemented. For preliminary design purposes, a
minimum removal and recompaction of 10 feet (as measured from finish grade) may be used in
cut areas on that portion of the site designated as having a high potential for liquefaction
(roughly the northern one third to one half of the site). (Ibid.)
In cut areas outside the area designated as high potential for liquefaction, a minimum
overexcavation of 5 feet below finish grade should be used. For areas designated as "fill" a
minimum removal of 5 feet may be used, provided a minimum total thickness of 10 feet of
properly compacted fill is maintained below the lowest adjacent finish grade (including lowest
adjacent street elevation). The removal depths for the infrastructure roadways should be a
minimum 5 feet below pavement subgrade. These estimates are for preliminary design planning
only and may be revised based on our review of rough grading plans. These preliminary
estimates may be revised upon review of the proposed grading concept plan. These alluvial soils
should be removed down to medium dense to dense, relatively non-porous alluvium material as
determined by the geotechnical consultant. Undercuts should be made 1:1 next to existing
roadways that will remain after grading. Cut slopes should be replaced as properly compacted
fill. (Ibid.)
The excavated materials should be moisture conditioned or dried back, as appropriate, to achieve
the recommended minimum relative compaction. Saturated soils may need to be dried back or
mixed with drier onsite materials and should be thoroughly mixed prior to fill placement. The
42
resultant excavation should be filled and compacted in this lifts to a minimum 92 percent relative
compaction at a minimum of 2 percent above the optimum moisture content. A minimum 90
percent relative compaction may be acceptable in the southern portion of the site. This will be
determined during review of rough grading plans. (Ibid.)
After completion of the recommended removal of unsuitable soils, the approved surface should
be scarified, moisture conditioned as needed and compacted prior to placing fill. If subgrade
conditions at the approved bottoms are wet and "pumping" near the recommended removal
depth, the scarification and moisture conditioning will not be necessary. Stabilization measures
where shallow groundwater conditions are expected at or near the recommended removal depth
may include the use of a stabilization fabric and/or coarse gravel/graded rock and gravel. Where
shallow groundwater conditions are present, alternative ground improvement recommendations
should be followed (see Mitigation Measure 5.5-b). Further evaluation of these specific areas
will be necessary after draft grading plans are prepared. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-20.)
5.6-f: All slopes should be provided with appropriate surface drainage features and landscaped
with drought-tolerant, slope-stabilizing vegetation as soon as possible after grading to reduce the
potential for erosion. Berms should be provided at the top of fill slopes to direct water away from
slope faces. Lot drainage should be directed such that runoff on slope faces is minimized.
Oversteepening of slopes should be avoided during fine grading and building construction.
Although not anticipated, if seepage is encountered in slopes, special drainage features may be
necessary. (Ibid.)
5.6-g: For slopes that are will be adjacent to ditches or other water conveyance features, proper
protection including rip rap or other slope protection devices as designed by the Project civil
engineer would be required. Slope stability and the potential for scour should also be considered
in the design drainage alignment. (Ibid.)
Explanation: The Project site is located within seismically active southern California. The
subject site contains an Earthquake Fault Zone (as created by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone Act). According to the Leighton & Associates Fault Investigation, the active San
Jacinto-Casa Loma fault transverses the northwestern and southern portions of the Project site.
Fault lineaments are shown by geomorphic evidence, aerial photography, and in the San Jacinto
7.5 minute Quadrangle of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Map (see Figure 5.6-1, Faults and
Fault Zones in the RDEIR2). In addition to the onsite Casa Loma, several other active faults are
located in the Project area. The San Jacinto Valley Segment of the San Jacinto Fault is located
approximately 0.8 miles northwest of the site, the San Jacinto-Anna Fault is located 7.2 miles to
the southeast, and San Andres Fault lies 15.7 miles to the northeast. Figure 5.6-1 summarizes
regional faults within the area. The San Jacinto Fault Zone is estimated to accommodate a plate
slip of approximately 12-20 millimeters per year. Since the mid 18t, century, at least 6 major
earthquakes have occurred along the San Jacinto Fault Zone, ranging from 6.2Mw to 7.2Mw. Of
all the fault systems in California, the San Jacinto and San Andreas Fault complexes are among
the most active. The U.S.G.S. measures hundreds of minor earthquakes annually within the San
Jacinto Valley. Most of these earthquakes are in the bedrock underlying the alluvium unit at
depths of 3 to 5 miles. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-2, 5, 13-15.)
Potential site ground rupture, as determined by the Leighton and Associates Fault Investigation,
is considered moderate to high. Ground rupture due to onsite faults could potentially affect
43
existing and future facilities (such as gas, electrical, water mains, etc.) that traverse fault zones
on the site. Secondary seismic effects due to strong ground shaking, ground rupture, liquefaction
and seismically induced settlement are considered significant. In order to mitigate for potential
impacts associated with seismic ground shaking, mitigation is provided (see Section 5.6.5
Mitigation Measures 5.6-c). (RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-13.) It should also be noted that all fault zones
identified on the property lie within planned park facilities which will minimize the presence of
structures that are susceptible to damage from groundshaking.
The project site is located in seismically active southern California with numerous fault systems
in the region. Structures will be designed in accordance with the values and parameters given
within the Universal Building Code (UBC) as required by state law. With the incorporation of
UBC seismic design parameters in construction of structures on site, the impacts associated with
exposure of people to geological hazards is less than significant. These measures are a standard
part of the Building Permit process and additional mitigation measures are not required. (Ibid.)
Liquefaction occurs when strong seismic activity creates excess pore pressures in cohensionless
soils. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils or soils of low plasticity
below a near surface groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction is
characterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layers, thereby causing the soil to
flow as a viscous liquid. This effect may be manifested at the ground surface by settlement
and/or sand boils. In order for the potential effects of liquefaction to be manifested at the ground
surface, the soils generally have to be granular or of low plasticity, loose to medium dense,
saturated relatively near the ground surface and must be subjected to a sufficient magnitude and
duration of ground shaking. Increased soil mobility can lead to lateral spreading, consolidation
and settlement of loose sediments, ground oscillation, flow failure, loss of bearing strength,
ground fissuring and other damaging formations. As depicted on Figure 5.6-3, Liquefaction
Hazard Areas of the RDEIR2, the Project is located in an area with moderate potential for
liquefaction. Upon further analysis, the Leighton Associates Report identifies the northern one-
third to one half of the Project site as having a potentially high possibility for liquefaction to
occur given current site conditions. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-5.)
Liquefaction potential analyses and earthquake-induced settlement calculations were performed
utilizing the computer program LiquefyPro. Considering the potential ground motions resulting
from the design basis ground motion (0.9g) and a maximum moment magnitude event for the
San Jacinto Fault (6.9Mw), the program follows the latest study procedures. Leighton used the
boring data, CPT data and groundwater data (perched groundwater table ranging from 5 to 22
feet) as assumptions in the model. Based on the above-described model, the relatively loose
saturated alluvial deposits onsite are considered susceptible to liquefaction hazards. In order to
compensate for hazards associated with liquefaction, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation
Measure 5.6-b, 5.6-e). (RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-13, 14.)
Due to the flat nature of the site and the existing topsoil and Quaternary-aged alluvium, the
subject site is not prone to landslide hazards. That said, manufactured slopes that are planned for
construction on the site would be susceptible to slope stability hazards. In order to prevent any
significant impacts from occurring, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation Measure 5.6- ).
(RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-14.)
44
Impact. Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (RDEIR2, at
p. 5.6-14)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant
level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
5.6-d While it is difficult to determine the level of subsidence and shrinkage risk, site grading
should include a balance area or ability to adjust import quantities to accommodate some
variation. Relative compaction rates should be followed as they appear in the February 28, 2005
Leighton and Associates Technical Report. As stated in the February 28, 2005 Leighton Report,
due to the agricultural discing of the surface soils, a subsidence value of 0.2 feet should be
applied when evaluating earthwork volumes. (Ibid.)
Explanation: Similar to landslides, mudflows (and associated erosion) occur during severe
weather events in or adjacent to mountainous terrain. Large boulders and sediment are
mobilized as a result of a sudden onslaught of water. This hazard is prone to occur in areas
affected by fire that are relatively void of vegetation. The Project is located in the San Jacinto
River Valley, away from mountainous terrain. This hazard is expected to be minimal at this
Project site. Any exposed soil surface may be susceptible to wind or water erosion. There are no
naturally occurring drainages onsite, therefore the likelihood of water-based erosion is unlikely.
(RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-6.) Short-term erosion effects during the construction phase of the Project
would be minimized through implementation of the City's construction Best Management
Practices (See Mitigation Measure 5.6-d). (RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-14.)
Impact: Will the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the Project, or is the Project located on expansive soil, creating
substantial risks to life or property. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-14.)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant
level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
5.6-a The onsite soils are suitable for reuse as compacted fill, provided they are relatively free of
organic materials, debris and oversize materials. The optimum lift thickness to produce a
uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In
general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Fill soils
45
should be placed and compacted to a minimum 92 percent relative compaction at a minimum of
2 percent above the optimum moisture content. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-15.)
Fill slopes should be overbuilt a minimum of 2 feet and trimmed back to the compacted core or
rolled with a weighted sheepsfoot compaction roller as the fill slope height increases in
maximum 4-foot increments. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in
accordance with City grading ordinances and minimum compacted standard under the
observation and testing of a qualified geotechnical engineer. (Ibid.)
All loosely packed exploration trench backfill shall be removed and recompacted in accordance
with project geotechnical guidelines. An engineering geologist should be present to observe all
excavations to confirm limits of faulting. If exposures differ from anticipated conditions, further
investigations and/or additional structural setbacks may be required. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-15, 16.)
Explanation: The volume change of excavated onsite materials upon recompaction is expected
to vary with materials, density, insitu moisture content, location and intended compaction effort.
This variance in material could potentially result in shrinkage, which would result in potential
subsidence risk. In order to reduce potential impacts to a level below significant, mitigation is
provided (see Mitigation Measure 5.6-d and 5.6-e). (RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-14.)
The earth materials encountered throughout the site consist of undocumented fill, topsoil and
alluvium. These units are described in the following sections in order of increasing age.
(RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-1.)
Undocumented Fill. Undocumented fills are related to grading activities to construct onsite
access roads, perimeter unimproved dirt roads, site agricultural leveling and exploratory
excavations (fault trenches). Other undocumented fills exist associated with limited water
retention berms to collect seasonal runoff and the livestock run-off retention basin. All
undocumented fills are considered unsuitable for support of additional fill or structures or other
planned improvements in their present condition. (Ibid.)
Topsoil. The majority of the site is composed of topsoil that is located on the upper 10 to 24
inches of the ground surface. Uniform in composition and thickness, this material general
consists of a light yellow- brown to yellow brown, silty sand, silty clay to sandy clay with
scattered gravel sized clasts. (Ibid.)
Alluvium (Qal). Alluvial soil was encountered in all areas of the site and were deposited as part
of a complex fluvial/channel dispositional environment. This alluvium consists of yellow-brown
to medium gray, dry to damp, silty, very fine to fine sand, with interbedded lenses of silt.
Channel deposits of homogeneous, friable, dry, medium to coarse sand with interbedded lenses
and lamination of gray, loose to medium dense, dry to damp, very fine to fine sand were also
observed. There are abundant in-filled animal burrows containing finer silt and sands. (RDEIR2
at p. 5.6-2)
Many portions of the site are characterized as having unsuitable near surface compressible soils
not suitable for structural support. As outlined in the significance criteria, location of a structure
on an unstable geological unit or soil would be a significant impact; thus, mitigation is provided
46
(see Section 5.6.5 Mitigation Measures 5.6-a of the RDEIR2). With appropriate mitigation, this
potential impact will be less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.6-14.)
Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts to Geology/Soils by the Project will be less than
significant. 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. (Ibid.)
Refer to Section 5.6 of the RDEIR2 for additional detail. With the incorporation of the
mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to
Geology and Soils are not considered significant.
5.7 Paleontological Resources
Impact. Will the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geological feature? (RDEIR2 at p. 5.7-2.)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant
level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
5.7-a Prior to the beginning of any excavation work, the developer or its contractor shall
demonstrate that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to carry out a paleontological
resources mitigation program. A paleontological monitor shall be onsite at all times during
grading activities that disturb non-documented fill soils and formations. If fossils are discovered,
the paleontologist or paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt construction activity
in the immediate area of discovery until such time that a complete assessment of the resources
can be conducted. If resources are found that are determined to be significant, the paleontological
monitor shall direct activities to recover the resources. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all
pertinent field notes, photos, and maps shall be deposited in a scientific institution with
paleontological collections, such as the San Bernardino County Museum. (Ibid.)
Explanation: Since the Project lies within a geologic formation with high resource bearing
potential and the Project would necessitate recompaction of potential fossil bearing alluvium,
potential impacts to paleontological resources are considered to be significant. Impacts to
paleontological resources could occur during excavation and site development when geologic
47
formations that have resource bearing potential are disturbed. Impacts would occur when fossils
are physically destroyed by such activities. In order to reduce potential construction-related
impacts to paleontological resources, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation Measure 5.7-a).
With the implementation of the construction monitoring program, impacts to paleontological
resources will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts to Paleontological Resources by the Project will be
less than significant. 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 required to fully mitigate for any potential paleontological resources,
residual cumulative impacts to regional paleontological resources would not occur. (RDEIR2, at
pp. 6-14, 15.)
Refer to Section 5.7 of the RDEIR2 for additional detail. With the incorporation of the
mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to
Paleontological Resources are not considered significant.
5.8 Water Ouality and Hydrolosy
Impact: Does the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements,
or otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.8-10, 20.)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant
level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
5.8-b Should dewatering be necessary during construction, all discharges shall be in accordance
with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements which mandate that
dewatered groundwater be tanked and hauled to a legal disposal site for treatment. Dewatering
shall not occur in onsite drainages or water features. In addition, should dewatering be necessary
during construction, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System dewatering permit shall
be obtained from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.8-20.)
5.8-d During construction, the project will incorporate all City of San Jacinto construction Best
Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs include the following:
• Erosion control BMPs including temporary seeding, permanent seeding, etc.
• Soil stabilization BMPs
• Sediment control BMPs including silt fence perimeter controls, surface roughening, tree or
natural vegetation preservation and protection, temporary gravel construction entrance/exit,
temporary diversions, permanent diversions, outlet stabilization, inlet protection, temporary
sediment basins and gravel bay barriers.
48
• Wind erosion BMPs
• Minimize contact with stormwater BMPs including BMPs for construction vehicles and
equipment maintenance, fueling and washing, materials maintenance and construction material
loading, unloading and access area controls.
• Non-storm water BMPs (RDEIR2, at p. 5.8-21.)
5.8-e: The Project applicant will need to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) pursuant to NPDES Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activity
Guidelines (Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ). The SWPPP will identify all BMPs that will
prevent construction pollutants from contacting storm water. Measures shall also be designed so
as to prevent all products of erosion from moving off site into receiving waters. Provisions will
also be included to ensure that BMPs are monitored and success recorded. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.8-
21.)
5.8-f. Structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required for new development to
improve water quality of stormwater runoff. In order to meet NPDES regulations, the design
volume or design flow to be treated must reduce pollutants to the Maximum Extend Practicable
(MEP). This project will incorporate several water quality extended detention basins, a volume-
based BMP, and several grass-lined biofiltration swales, a flow-based BMP. Once the project is
complete, maintenance will be the responsibility of the Villages of San Jacinto homeowners
association. In addition to sizing techniques, several quantity-control Best Management Practices
(BMPs) shall be implemented to control runoff:
• Rainfall shutoff devices shall be used to prevent irrigation during and after precipitation;
• Irrigation systems shall utilize a dripping system to eliminate nuisance run-off; and
• Backflow preventer/pressure regulators shall be installed.
The Project applicant will need to develop a Water Quality Management Plan pursuant to
NPDES Permit #CAS 618033, order # R8-2002-001. The Water Quality Management Plan will
identify all final site BMP requirements.
The following BMPs may be incorporated into final site designs:
• Construct community streets, sidewalks and parking lot aisles to the minimum widths
necessary;
• Incorporate landscape treatment for parking lot runoff,
• Use unit pavers or other equivalent porous material to construct walkways, alleys and other
low-traffic areas;
• Utilize trees in landscaping plans to maximize canopy interception and water conservation;
• Plant native trees and maximize canopy interception and water conservation;
• Drain rooftops into adjacent landscaping prior to discharging to the storm drain;
• Vegetate slopes with native or drought tolerant vegetation; and
• Install energy dissipaters at the outlets of new storm drains that enter the regional storm drain
system that eventually feeds into the San Jacinto River. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.8-21-22.)
Explanation: The project would not impact regional groundwater (Leighton 2006). All lake
and drainage features on site would be constructed so they are above the regional groundwater
table so as to prevent intermixing of ground and surface waters. That said, it is possible that,
49
during project construction, perched groundwater may be encountered. Mitigation will decrease
any potential impacts to a less than significant level to avoid potential impacts to regional
groundwater resources in the San Jacinto River Valley. (see Mitigation Measure 5.8-b).
Development of the Project may result in an increase in pollutant load due to sedimentation.
Sediments are soils or other surficial materials eroded and then transported or deposited by the
action of wind, water or gravity. Sediment from erosion, primarily during construction, is quite
often a major project pollutant of concern. A potentially significant impact could occur during
construction related to sedimentation, therefore mitigation is provided to decrease any potential
impacts to a less than significant level. (see Mitigation Measure 5.8-d and 5.8-e). (RDEIR2, at p.
5.8-11.)
The current land uses on the Project site generate nitrogen and phosphorous which may have an
impact on existing onsite and offsite water quality. Due to the elimination of agriculture, the
project site will likely result in a beneficial impact due to a reduction in nitrogen and
phosphorous. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.8-12.)
Due to the intensification of land uses on the site, in combination with an increase in impervious
surfaces, the Project may result in potentially significant impacts to water quality attributable to
stormwater runoff. The constituents described below commonly are found on similar
developments as a result of urban runoff and could, therefore, affect the Project's water quality:
Nutrients — Nutrients are inorganic substances, such as nitrogen and phosphorus. The primary
sources of nutrients in urban runoff are fertilizers and eroded soils. Due principally to the type of
land use, the project is anticipated to result in the transport of fertilizers from landscape areas by
stormwater or water from irrigated sprinklers and wash down activities, resulting in a potentially
significant impact. In order to reduce this potential impact, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation
Measure 5.8-f). (RDEIR2, at p. 5.8-13.)
Heavy Metals — Metals are raw material components in non-metal products such as fuels,
adhesives, paints and other coatings. Under the Project, it is anticipated that heavy metals from
vehicles on parking lots and streets may be transported to the storm drain system, resulting in a
potentially significant impact(see Mitigation Measure 5.8-f). (Ibid.)
Organic Compounds - Commercially available or naturally occurring carbon-based organic
compounds are found in pesticides, solvents and hydrocarbons. Landscaping associated with the
Project may result in release of organic compounds, therefore mitigation is provided
(see Mitigation Measure 5.8,f). (Ibid.)
Trash and Debris - The introduction of a suburban population to the area will contribute to an
increase in trash and debris pollution which will result in a potentially significant impact. In
order to reduce potentially significant impacts, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation Measure
5.8 f). (Ibid.)
Oxygen-Demanding Substances — Biodegradable organic materials on-site could react with
dissolved oxygen in the water to form other compounds. It is anticipated that an increase in
population in the area would result in a likely increase of oxygen-demanding substances in urban
50
runoff, therefore creating a significant impact. In order to reduce this potential impact, mitigation
is provided (see Mitigation Measure 5.8-fl. (Ibid.)
Oil and Grease—Oil and grease are characterized as high-molecular weight organic compounds.
The primary source of oil and grease of concern to the Project would be leaky cars.
Because of their respective increase in parking facilities, it is anticipated that the business park,
commercial, school and community center uses would result in potentially significant impacts
related to oil and grease. In order to reduce this potential impact, mitigation is provided (see
Mitigation Measure 5.8 f). (RDEIR2, at p. 5.8-13, 14.)
Bacteria and Viruses — Due to the presence of potential food service establishments in the
commercial, business park, school, community center and homes in general, bacteria and/or
viruses have the potential to be introduced into the local drainage system. In order to compensate
for this potentially significant impact, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation Measure 5.8-1).
(RDEIR2, at p. 5.8-14.)
Pesticides — Herbicides used for controlling nuisance plant growth are a potential source of
pollutants. Because the project will introduce new landscaping to the project site, the
introduction of herbicides into stormwater runoff is considered a potentially significant impact.
hi order to reduce this potentially significant impact, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation
Measure 5.8-f). (Ibid.)
Impact: (1) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, and (2) Would the Project create or
contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources or polluted runoff? (RDEIR2, at p.
5.8-15.)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant
level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
5.8-a The Project is located within the San Jacinto — Area Drainage Plan (SJ-ADP) which is
intended to monitor and maintain run-off quantities within western San Jacinto. The Project will
be charged a per acre fee in order to help pay a fair share of the price of area-wide drainage
facilities. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.8-20.)
Explanation: A Drainage Plan has been incorporated into the Specific Plan for the project and
is based on the findings in the February 2009 JLC Engineering Hydrology Study referenced
above. Proposed drainage facilities are shown on Figure 5.8-2, On-Site Drainage Plan. 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.
51
The Drainage Plan provides 100-year flood protection for the project site for the interim and
ultimate conditions as described below.
Interim Condition
The interim condition assumes that the off-site area is undeveloped in the existing condition, and
the on-site development of the Villages of San Jacinto and corresponding infrastructure is
functional. These interim drainage facilities would be developed concurrently with phase I, and
are required to control and convey the interim flow rates originating from the off-site area.
Interim condition calculations were used to determine the points where flows enter the site and to
size the corresponding facilities. Following is a summary of the interim drainage facilities:
• Culvert V, shown on Figure 5.8-2, is a proposed culvert south of the Bridge Street and Cawston
Avenue intersection that will collect the runoff that overtops the Casa Loma Canal Siphon. The
proposed culvert will discharge the runoff into the Line V Channel. The culvert will provide
100-year flood protection for Bridge Street. The ultimate flow rate will substantially decrease
once the San Jacinto Master Drainage Plan (MDP) facilities Line D and Casa Loma Basin are
constructed. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.8-15.)
• Culvert E shown on Figure 5.8-2 is a proposed culvert located north of the intersection of
Sanderson Avenue and the Casa Loma Canal. Based on the current topography, the runoff
emanating from the east side of Sanderson Avenue will overtop Sanderson Avenue and enter the
project site. As a result, a culvert and earthen channel system have been proposed at the
southeast comer of PA 11. These facilities will convey the 100-year flow rate to the Line E
system. The San Jacinto MDP proposes drainage system Line E2 will ultimately collect the
flows emanating east of Sanderson Avenue. (Ibid.)
• The earthen roadway on the land east of Sanderson Avenue, north and south of the intersection
of DeAnza Drive and Sanderson Avenue, is not a permitted structure and diverts substantial
runoff to the project site, indicated as Off-site Flow 3 on Figure 5.8-2. This diversion occurs
because the height of the earthen roadway produces a ponding condition south of the earthen
roadway, which forces flows to overtop Sanderson Avenue. The roadway will be reconstructed
and lowered to an elevation that will eliminate the ponding condition and allow flows to overtop
this roadway, thereby eliminating the overtopping condition on Sanderson Avenue. (RDEIR2, at
p. 5.8-16.)
Ultimate Condition
The ultimate condition assumes that the San Jacinto MDP systems are in place and functional.
With these facilities in place, the off-site area that is tributary to the Villages of San Jacinto is
reduced to the area between the Casa Loma Canal and Bridge Street. (Ibid.)
Figure 5.8-2 of the RDEIR2 provides the locations where the existing off-site runoff enters the
project site (1, 2, and 3) and the corresponding 100-year peak flow rate for the interim condition.
However, the runoff entering the project site will eventually be eliminated with the
implementation of the San Jacinto MDP. The implementation of the San Jacinto MDP is based
on the timing of the development of the surrounding area. As a result, the construction timeline
for the proposed San Jacinto MDP drainage facilities is unknown. Consequently, the project
52
incorporates a drainage plan that will not impact upstream and downstream property owners but
will provide flood protection for the overall project site. The drainage plan will incorporate a
vegetative channel and a detention/water quality basin, which are designated as Line V and
Detention Basin V. These two facilities are the major backbone infrastructure that will collect
the runoff that emanates from off-site and on-site areas. Line V and Detention Basin V have been
designed to convey and control the interim flow rate and ultimate flow rate. As discussed
previously, the interim flow rate results in a runoff rate that exceeds the ultimate condition flow
rate. The Line V Channel will allow for the connection of several storm drain laterals. The limits
of the storm drain laterals are based on the street design policy implemented by the City of San
Jacinto and the County of Riverside. These storm drain laterals will provide 100-year flood
protection for the on-site planning areas and ensure that downstream properties would not be
impacted by increased flows released from the project site. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.8-16.)
Because the San Jacinto MDP facilities would be designed to handle the increase in drainage
from the project site once developed, impacts to surface water would not be significant.
However, in accordance with San Jacinto requirements, the Project shlall be required to
participate in the San Jacinto River levee financing project. (See Mitigation Measure 5.8-a.)
(RDEIR2, at p. 5.8-19.)
Impact: Does the Project place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map, or does it place structures within a 100 year flood hazard area structures that would
impede or redirect flood flows; or would the Project expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.8-19, 20)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant
level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
5.8-c: All buildings shall be located outside of the 100-year floodplain. The applicant shall
process a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) map revision. Further, the applicant shall obtain a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to issuance of building permits. The Project
applicant, or subsequent property owners, shall obtain flood insurance, to the extent required by
law, to protect against any damage that might occur during a flood event. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.11-
20; see also FEIR at p. 4.4.)
Explanation: The northern portion of the project site is located within Zone A (100-year
floodplain as mapped by FEMA) of the San Jacinto River. Development within the floodplain
may result in an impedence to flow and an increase in the base flood elevation. Because a portion
of the proposed development is proposed to be constructed within the limits of the 100-year
floodplain, development of the Project will result in potentially significant impacts relating to
flood hazards. As discussed above, the project drainage plan will provide 100-year flood
53
protection for the project site and will not adversely affect downstream properties. However,
mitigation is required to have the project removed from the appropriate FEMA floodplain map.
Mitigation will decrease impacts to a less than significant level. (see Mitigation Measure 5.8-c).
It should be noted that the project site elevation will be raised during grading activities to ensure
that future structures are outside of the 100-year floodplain. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.8-19.) The Project
would not expose people or structure to a significant flood risk. Adequate flood protection will
be provided in the absence of the planned San Jactino River levell project, which will provide
additional protection from flooding in the Project area. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.8-20.)
Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts to Water Quality and Hydrology by the Project will
be less than significant. 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. (RDEIR2, at p 6-15.)
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
stonnwater 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 will not result in a Project
specific 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. (Ibid.)
Refer to Section 5.8 of the RDEIR2 for additional detail. With the incorporation of the
mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to
Water Quality and Hydrology not considered significant.
5.9 Traffic and Circulation
Impact: Would the Project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at
intersections; or would the Project individually exceed a level of service standard established by
the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (RDEIR2, at p.
5.9-15.)
54
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct and indirect impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (State CEQA
Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been identified as minimum
requirements to reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant impact level. Additional
requirements may be imposed by the City Engineer as set forth in the Conditions of Approval to
Tentative Tract No. 36188:
Phase I
5.9-a: The following measures, at a minimum, shall be implemented prior to issuance of the first
residential and commercial building permits and as depicted on Figure 5.9-5:
• Construct Sanderson Avenue at its ultimate half-section width as an Urban
Arterial roadway from the project's northerly boundary to the project's southerly
boundary in conjunction with development.
• Construct De Anza Drive at its ultimate full-section width as a secondary roadway
from Cawston Avenue to Sanderson Avenue in conjunction with development.
• Construct Bridge Street at its ultimate half-section width as a secondary roadway
from Street "A" to Sanderson Avenue.
• Construct Cawston Avenue at its ultimate half-section width as a secondary
roadway from the Phase II southerly boundary to De Anza Drive.
• Participate in fair share fees to construct a traffic signal at the following
intersection in conjunction with Phase I of the development:
■ Sanderson Avenue(NS) at:
• De Anza Drive (EW).
• Construct a traffic signal at the following intersection in conjunction with Phase I
of the development:
■ Sanderson 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.
• Driveway 15 shall be restricted to right in/right out only access.
• 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-59.)
Phase II
5.9-b The following measures, at a minimum, shall be implemented prior to issuance of the 432"d
residential permit, any additional commercial building permits and as depicted on Figure 5.9-6:
• Construct Cawston Avenue at its ultimate full-section width as a secondary
roadway along the Phase II Cawston Avenue boundaries in conjunction with
Phase 11 of the development.
• Driveway 14 shall be restricted to right in/right out only access.
55
• 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-60.)
Phase III
5.9-c: The following measures, at a minimum, shall be implemented prior to issuance of the
754th residential permit, the high school, any additional commercial building permits and as
depicted on Figure 5.9-7:
• Construct Odell Avenue at its ultimate half-section width as a secondary roadway
from Ramona Boulevard to the project's southerly boundary in conjunction with
Phase III development.
• Construct Cawston Avenue at its ultimate full-section width as a secondary
roadway from Ramona Boulevard to the Phase II northerly boundary in
conjunction with Phase III development.
• Construct Ramona Boulevard at its ultimate half-section width as a secondary
roadway from Odell Avenue to Sanderson Avenue in conjunction with Phase III
development.
• Driveway 5 at Ramona Boulevard shall be restricted to right in/right out only
access.
• Participate in fair share fees to construct a traffic signal at the following
intersection in conjunction with Phase III of the development:
■ Cawston Avenue (NS) at:
• Ramona Boulevard (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.
• Construct secondary access for PA 19 as approved by the City Engineer.
(RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-60-61.)
Phase IV
5.9-d: The following measures, at a minimum, 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.
56
• 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:
■ Driveway 3 (NS) at:
• Ramona Boulevard(EW) (Only if High School is constructed)
■ Street "A"/Driveway 11 (NS) at:
• Bridge Street (EW)
■ 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:
■ 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-61-62.)
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 of the RDEIR2, these fees
are collected as part of a funding mechanism aimed at ensuring that local and regional highway
capacity keeps ace 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 Project based on current fee rates. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-62.)
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 fees will allow the City the financing
mechanism to conduct such improvements. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-64.)
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.). (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-64.)
Explanation: The mitigation measures would ensure that adequate infrastructure is provided at
the time or before the time when the increased capacity is needed. The RDEIR2 provides further
detail regarding the capacity needs which is summarized in part below.
57
Project Traffic. In order to characterize potential traffic impacts associated with the project, a
characterization of the project's contribution to local traffic levels must occur. Site traffic is
characterized by trip generation, trip distribution, modal split, and trip assignment. As indicated
in Section 5.9.1, the Project's `worst case" traffic impact scenario would be a land use scenario
that includes construction of the planned high school, in effect a 1,016-unit development. Trip
generation rates are based upon the proposed land use plan and data collected by the Institute of
Traffic Engineers ("ITE"), Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. Trip generation rates for each
proposed land use are shown in Table 5.9-2 of the RDEIR2, Project Trip Generation Rates, while
daily and peak hour traffic generated by the Project is shown in Table 5.9-3 of the RDEIR2, Trip
Generation Summary. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-15-17.)
Due to the size and diversity of land uses of the Project a certain portion of the anticipated ADT
will simply circulate internally rather than exit the development to travel to other destinations.
This factor, deemed "internal capture," would include vehicle trips from the residential areas to
school, residential areas to shopping center and residential areas to the mixed use area. The
number of internal capture trips was calculated for each building phase of the project. As shown
in Table 5.9-3, the project is estimated to generate a total of 27,166 net external ADT for all four
phases after accounting for internal trips and "pass-by" trips (i.e., traffic that will access the site
on the way to another primary destination). (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-17.)
Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip
distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of
employment, commercial and recreational opportunities and the proximity to the regional
freeway system. Trip distribution for this project is based upon near-term conditions which
include those roadway facilities which are either in place or are expected to be in place over the
next several years. Roadway construction and improvements that are assumed to be in place in
conjunction with each phase of the project are detailed in Section 4.2 of the Traffic Impact
Analysis in Appendix H of the RDEIR2. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-18.)
Due to the lack of anticipated public transit facilities within this portion of the City, the traffic-
reducing impact of public transportation facilities has not been considered for this Project.
Should transit facilities become a part of this area, they would in effect reduce traffic levels and
reduce anticipated impacts described herein. (Ibid.)
The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the
site's trip generation, trip distribution, proposed arterial highway system and local street systems.
Project generated traffic is then combined with background traffic and projected future traffic to
estimate impacts on the study area roadways. (Ibid.)
Intersection Impacts for Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Conditions. In order to identify
direct project impacts, interim year analyses were performed for three Existing Plus Ambient
Plus Project (EAP) scenarios. These scenarios don't include the cumulative projects that were
identified above, but do include ambient traffic growth rates for each study year which
corresponds to the project phasing. The following three sets of traffic volume conditions have
been forecasted:
• 2015 EAP with Project Phase I
58
• 2017 EAP with Project Phases I+ II
• 2023 EAP with Project Phases I+ If + 1II.
Implementation of the mitigation measures included in Section 5.9.5, Mitigation Measures, of
the RDEIR2 would ensure that regional traffic conditions do not dip below an acceptable LOS
(LOS D). Incorporation of these mitigation measures would ensure that traffic improvements
precede development and thereby avoid potentially significant impacts. (RDE1R2, at p. 5.9-40-
41.)
Construction Related Traffic Impacts. Construction-related traffic would involve
approximately 20 to 40 workers per day at the project site during each construction phase.
Construction-related traffic would use Sanderson Avenue as the primary north/south access to
and from the project site while various east/west routes may be used as appropriate during each
phase of the project. 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 11 would start immediately after the completion of Phase I in January 2016.
Phase 11 would be completed in December 2017. Phase III would commence immediately after
the completion of Phase 11 in December 2017. Phase III would include the construction of
single-family 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. (RDEIR2, at
p. 5.9-47, 48.)
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 1, 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 Project would commence in 2011 and would be completed by 2033,
for a total construction duration of 22 years. Table 5.9-16 of the RDEIR2 presents the heavy
construction equipment assumptions for each construction stage. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-48.)
The additional worker and construction-related truck trips to and from the Project site would
potentially affect traffic operations at Project area intersections during peak hours. Potential
constructed-related traffic impacts are considered adverse, but less than significant because the
increased traffic generation during peak hours would be temporary and intermittent during the
construction periods. However, in order to avoid hazards or short-term delay, mitigation is
provided for short-term construction traffic impacts (see Mitigation Measure 5.94). This
measure requires a traffic control plan for each phase of the project which will serve 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-49.)
TUMF Fees. TUMF fee calculations are based on the rate of growth and trip generation
characteristics of different types of development. TUMF program requirements for residential
uses are calculated by multiplying the proposed increase in dwelling units by the applicable
residential land use fee rate as defined in the respective TUMF ordinances. Table 5.9-8 of the
59
RDEIR2, TUMF Fee Calculations, includes standard TUMF fee calculations for residential uses
and TUMF monetary obligations for the Project.
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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-35, 63, 64.)
Impact: Does the Project either substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or
incompatible uses or result in inadequate emergency access? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-49)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct and indirect impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (State CEQA
Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
5.94 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.). (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-64.) See also Mitigation Measures
5.9-a, 5.9-b, 5.9-c, 5.9-d, and 5.9-e.
Explanation: Site access for the proposed development would be provided via a total of 17
driveways including seven full access driveways taking access from Odell Avenue, Cawston
Avenue, Sanderson Avenue, Ramona Boulevard South, Bridge Street and De Anza Drive. The
location of all driveways and traffic signal installations are shown below on Figures 5.9-5
through 5.9-8.
The Project provides appropriate access points and interior circulation patterns to ensure that
adequate access and circulation is provided to and throughout the development. Site distance at
each project access point would be reviewed to ensure standard Caltrans and City of San Jacinto
sight distance requirements are provided by the project to avoid potential dangerous
intersections. In addition, stop sign, stop bar, and stop legends would be provided at all project
driveways that intersect with public roadways (those not meeting traffic signal warrants), and
onsite traffic signing and striping would be implemented in conjunction with detailed
construction plans for the project site to ensure that the project provides adequate and safe site
access and circulation, which meets minimum design standards applicable to the proposed
development.
Mitigation measures that address project-related and cumulative traffic volume impacts to the
surrounding street network will ensure that site access from the adjacent street system is
60
maintained at acceptable levels to ensure that adequate and safe access and circulation is
provided to the site (see Section 5.9.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measures 5.9-a through
5.9-f.) (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-49-50.)
Refer to Section 5.9 of the RDEIR2 for additional detail. With the incorporation of the
mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's direct and indirect impacts to Traffic and
Circulation are not considered significant.
5.10 Air Ouality
Impact. Will the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-44)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct and indirect impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
While already considered less than significant, the Project incorporates additional mitigation to
further reduce any potential impacts related to odors. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been identified to further reduce
the potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
5.3-a 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 of the proposed development
that the property is located in an area of active agricultural land uses which may potentially result
in inconvenience and/or discomfort associated with adjacent agricultural operations including
noise, odors and dust generation, and chemical drift. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.3-5.)
Additionally, Tract No. 36188 Conditions of Approval, Condition 57 requires that a `Notice of
Condition Affecting Property' be recorded for each residential lot indicating the proximity to
large animals and related insects, noise, dust, and odors associates with agricultural activities,
and odors from the Eastern Municipal Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Explanation: 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 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., agricultural fields), odors associated with project construction would be considered less
than significant. (5.10-44.)
During the operational phase of the Project, anticipated odors would be generated from cooking
facilities and landscapeibuilding 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
61
such uses to determine if additional environmental review is warranted at that time. At this time,
however, long-term operational impacts associated with Project-generated odors would be
considered less than significant. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-44.)
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, of the RDEIR2). 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 on days when hot temperatures are experienced and/ or gusts of winds occur.
Given the close proximity of the project to off-site odor sources, the Project could result in odor
nuisance complaints. As a part of the 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
(RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-44, 45.). In addition, Condition 58 of Tentative Tract 36188 outlines
development criteria for commercial uses adjoining the WWTP, that address building location
and orientation for restaurants, fencing requirements, and a Notice to future commercial tenants
of the potential odor condition effecting the property.
Refer to Section 5.10 of the RDEIR2 for additional detail. With the incorporation of the
mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to
odors are not considered significant.
5.11 Noise
Impact: Would the Project expose 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? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.11-7.)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant
level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
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
62
foot, and have no openings or cracks. The noise barriers may be constructed of acrylic glass, any
masonry material, earthen berm, or a combination of these materials. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.11-17.)
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 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.11-17,
18.)
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 traffic-related
noise. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.11-18.)
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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.11-18.)
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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.11-18.)
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-noise-
generatinglconstruction activities, such as interior painting, are not subject to these restrictions.
(RDEIR2, at p. 5.11-18.)
Explanation: 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).
63
Figure 5.11-2 of the RDEIR2, 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.11-7.)
The public roadway system that abuts or traverses the site would carry project and regional
traffic. To determine the future noise impact, the City's 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 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 Project, 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.
(RDEIR2, at pp. 5.11-7, 8.)
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 Project
related roadways was modeled. The results of the noise modeling for roadway traffic noise are
presented in Table 5.11-3 of the RDEIR2, Modeled Future Sound Level along Project Roadways.
(RDEIR2, at p. 5.11-8.)
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 Mitigation Measures 5.11-
a and 5.114). (RDEIR2, at p. 5.11-8, 11.) Additional detail is provided in the RDEIR2 in
Section 5.11.
School-Related Noise Concerns. A high school is designated as part of the Project. Schools
are both noise-sensitive 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 in the
RDEIR2. 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 Mitigation Measures 5.11-c). (RDEIR2, at p. 5.11-15.)
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
64
significant impacts, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation Measure 5.11-c, 5.11-d and 5.11-e).
(Ibid.)
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 Mitigation Measure
5.11-d). (Ibid.)
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,
Project generated construction noise would pose a potentially significant effect on noise-
sensitive 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 Mitigation Measure 5.114). (RDEIR2, at p. 5.11-16-17.)
Cumulative Impacts: With the incorporation of the mitigation measure identified herein, the
Project's cumulative impacts to aesthetics are considered to be less than significant. 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 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, Mitigation to address this significant cumulative noise impact is
included in Section 5.11.5, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.11-a, and as further
described above. (RDEIR2, at pp. 6-24, 25.)
Refer to Section 5.11 of the RDEIR2 for additional detail. With the incorporation of the
mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to
Noise are not considered significant.
5.12 Public Services and Utilities
Impact. 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,
65
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
forfire protection? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-2.)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant
level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
5.12-a The Developer shall be required to pay the Development Impact Mitigation Fees, as
determined to be necessary by the City Community Development Department and Public Works
Department to offset impacts on City fire services. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-10.)
Explanation: 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
(response vehicles, EMT equipment, etc) and the 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-9.)
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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-9.)
Although the development of the Project 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 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
66
factor that is derived from the number of persons per residential unit or the number of employees
per commercial acreage. (Ibid.)
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
potentially result in decreased levels of service within the project area and city-wide. The
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 two proposed school sites into
single-family homes, allowing for new 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-9, 10.)
Impact. 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? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-10)
Finding: Impacts for this category by the Project will be less than significant. (RDEIR, at p.
5.12-12.) Nevertheless, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the
RDEIR2. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.) With the incorporation of the mitigation measures
identified herein, the Project's direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this category will be
mitigated to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
5.12-b: The Developer shall be required to pay the Development Impact Mitigation Fees, as
determined to be necessary by the City Community Development Department and Public Works
Department to offset impacts on police services. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-13.)
Explanation: The Project would result in a maximum of 1,322 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 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 Project is serviced by the City
Police Department which currently maintains acceptable levels of emergency call response times
as defined by the County Sheriffs Department for other contract City and County police
67
departments. The development of the Specific Plan area would 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. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.12-11, 12.)
Implementation of the Project 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
Project 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 Project 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-12.)
Although the development of the Project will not independently impact existing police 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 police protection personnel and facilities. The City
Development Impact Fee Justification Study identifies the City's determination that one new
police 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 police facilities as it relates to the level of service
demanded by new development, which varies in proportion to the 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). (Ibid.)
The Project 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 Project would 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. Mitigation will decrease any potential impact to a less than significant
level. (see Mitigation Measure 5.12-b). (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-11-12.)
68
Impact. 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 objectives for schools? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-16, 17.)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant
level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-19; see also FEIR, at p. 4-4.)
Explanation: 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. (Ibid.)
The Project would result in development of a maximum 1,322 dwelling units, assuming worse
case that the proposed school site is developed into single-family homes. The Project would also
include 22.7 acres of general commercial development, a 26.3-acre mixed-use development, and
would also potentially include a 62.2 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 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.
(RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-17.)
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 in the RDEIR2 contains the
anticipated student generation that would result from the proposed residential development and
Table 5.12-5 in the RDEIR2 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-17.)
Based on the proposed number and type of residential units and student generation rates as
presented in Table 5.12-3 of the RDEIR2 the Project would generate up to 642 elementary
69
school students, 175 middle school students and 306 high school students. A total of up to 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 of the RDEIR2, the Project would generate up to 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-18.)
The 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 Mitigation Measure 5.12-c). Additionally,
the Project would potentially include the designation of a new 62.2 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 Project. (Ibid.)
Impact: 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? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-22.)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant
level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
See Mitigation Measures 5.8-a, 5.8-b, 5.8-d, 5.8-e, and 5.8-f listed above.
Explanation: 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 12-22.)
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
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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-22, 23.)
The Specific Plan identifies the following conditions for development of the Villages of San
Jacinto:
70
1. 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 requirements.
2. Project drainage facilities shall be publicly maintained.
3. 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-23.)
Section 5.8, Water Quality and Hydrology of the RDEIR2, indicates that improvements to the
stormwater collection system and installation of a new onsite drainage system would be
necessary to provide adequate storm drainage within the Project site. 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.
See Section 5.8, Water Quality and Hydrology of the RDEIR2, for further discussion of potential
impacts and mitigation measure associated with stormwater drainage on local water quality and
hydrology. (Ibid.)
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.
(RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-43-44.)
Explanation: 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.
(RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-42.)
The Lamb Canyon Landfill, which is regulated by the California Integrated Waste Management
Board (CIWMB), approved a request by the Riverside County Waste Management District
(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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-
28-42.)
The RDEIR2 reports that 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 (AB939) and construction/demolition materials associated
with new development. Likewise, the County does not have a particular threshold to define a
significant project-specific 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. 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. (RDEIR, at pp. 5.12-42, 43.)
Other factors to consider in evaluating the 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 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.12-43.)
The City is mandated by the California Integrated Waste Management District (CIWMD) to
divert 50% of its waste stream away from landfills (AB939). Information obtained on the
CIWMD website, indicates that that the City of San Jacinto has consistently met waste diversion
standards between the years of 1995 and 2000. Preliminary data for the years 2001 and 2002
indicate that diversion rates were 55% and 46%, respectively. Source reduction, recycling, and
composting can reduce a project's waste disposal by as much as 50%. 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 AB393, a number of mitigation measures
have been identified to facilitate appropriate waste generation minimization and recycling
efforts. (Ibid.)
Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts to Public Services and Utilities by the Project will be
less than significant. The Project would involve an incremental increase in demand for public
facilities. As described in Section 5.12 of the RDEIR2, consistency and contribution to City
public facility fee structures would eliminate adverse cumulative impacts on local sewer, water,
police and fire services. The 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 6-25.)
Refer to Section 5.12 of the RDEIR2 for additional detail. With the incorporation of the
mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to
Public Services and Utilities are not considered significant.
5.13 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or environmental through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.13-10)
Finding: With the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to this category will be mitigated to a less than significant
level. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the RDEIR2. (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the
potential impacts to a less than significant impact level:
5.13-a: In order to ensure that methane hazards do not exist on the 20-acre portion of the site
currently 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 13-13.)
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, onsite
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. (Ibid.)
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. (Ibid.)
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 specialist must
occur. Following removal of the equipment shed, observations should be made for any stained
soil beneath the shed. If stained areas are observed, surface and near surface samples should 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. (RDEIR2, at pp. 5.13-13, 14.)
5.13-e: During removal of debris piles, a qualified hazardous materials specialist shall be onsite.
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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.13-14.)
5.13-f: In order to mitigate for potential hazards associated with existing septic tanks onsite, 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.
(Ibid.)
5.13-g: In order to prevent groundwater contamination, the three onsite 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. (Ibid.)
74
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.
(Ibid.)
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. (Ibid.)
Explanation: 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. (RDEIR2 at p. 5.13-10)
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 Mitigation Measure 5.13-b). (Ibid.)
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 Mitigation Measure 5.13-c). (Ibid.)
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 Mitigation Measure 5.13-d). (RDEIR, at p. 5.13-11.)
Debris, including old equipment, water heaters, trash, etc. were 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 Mitigation Measure 5.13-e). (Ibid.)
Two septic systems are located onsite. In order to reduce potential impacts related to biohazard
contamination as a result of septic tank residue, mitigation is provided. (see Mitigation Measure
5.13-f). (RDEIR2, at p. 5.13-11.)
75
Once the Project is developed, domestic water will come from imported water sources from
Eastern Municipal Water District rather than onsite groundwater supplies. In order to close the
three onsite 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 Mitigation Measure 5.13-g). (Ibid.)
Due to the age of many onsite buildings, the potential for abestos-laden materials exist onsite. In
order to reduce any impacts related to asbestos hazards, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation
Measure 5.13-h). (Ibid.)
Due to the age of many onsite buildings, the potential for lead-based paint materials exist onsite.
In order to reduce any impacts related to lead-based paint hazards, mitigation is provided (see
Section 5.13.6 of the RDEI 2, Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 5.13-i) (RDEIR, at p.
5.13-12.)
Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts to Hazards/Risk of Upset by the Project will be less
than significant. 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 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. (Ibid.)
Refer to Section 5.13 of the RDEIR2 for additional detail. With the incorporation of the
mitigation measures identified herein, the Project's direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to
Hazards and Hazardous Materials are not considered significant.
SECTION IV
RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that "it is the policy of the state that public agencies
should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of
such projects. The Legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific economic,
social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures,
individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof."
Section 15364 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines "feasible" as "capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account
economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors."
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures
outlined in the FEIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant
level and that no other feasible mitigation measures are available. Despite these significant and
76
unavoidable impacts, the City nevertheless approves the Project because of the benefits
described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations included herein.
5.3 Agricultural Resources:
Impact. Will the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide
Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.3-3.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
substantially lessen, but do not completely avoid, the significant environmental effect associated
with implementation of the Specific Plan. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091 subd. (a)(1).)
Beyond the mitigation measures identified below, specific economic legal, social, technological,
or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or Project alternatives that would
completely reduce this impact to a less than significant impact. The Project will result in an
unavoidable significant adverse impact to existing Agricultural Resources. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.3-
5.)
Mitigation Measures:
5.3-a 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 of the proposed development
that the property is located in an area of active agricultural land uses which may potentially result
in inconvenience and/or discomfort associated with adjacent agricultural operations including
noise, odors and dust generation, and chemical drift. (Draft EIR, at p. 5.3-5.)
Explanation: The Project is located on a site that has been designated by the California
Resources Agency as prime, unique or statewide important farmland. This impact is considered
significant and is further quantified by use of the State of California Department of Conservation
LESA model. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.3-3.).
Although analysis of agricultural impacts through use of the California Agricultural LESA model
is not specifically tied to a significance criteria, the recent conversion of agricultural uses to
urban land uses throughout the western Riverside County area is an issue of concern for many
stakeholders. Therefore, in an abundance of caution, the LESA model is used for rating the
relative quality of land resources based upon site-specific measurable features such as soil
resource quality, project site size, water availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and
surrounding protected resource lands. (Ibid.)
The LESA Model is composed of six different factors. Two Land Evaluation factors are based
on measures of soil resource quality. Four Site Assessment factors provide measures of project
size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected
resource lands. For a given project, each of these factors is separately rated on a 100 point scale.
The factors are then weighted relative to one another and combined, resulting in a single numeric
score for a given project, with a maximum attainable score of 100 points. It is the total project
score that becomes the basis for making a determination of a project's potential significance,
based upon a range of established scoring thresholds. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.3-3.)
77
The Land Evaluation portion of the model equals 22.53, and the Site Assessment portion equals
38.93, for a total Project score of 61.46. According to the LESA manual, a score of 60-79 points
is considered significant unless either the Land Evaluation or Site Assessment subscore is less
than 20 points. Because the Land Evaluation and the Site Assessment subscores (22.53 and
38.93, respectively) are both greater than 20, the overall score of 61.46 indicates that the
agricultural lands of the Project site are considered a significant resource and, therefore,
conversion of the Project site's agricultural lands would significantly impact the agricultural
resources of the site. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.3-3, 4.)
The Project would irreversibly convert land currently under agricultural production and
identified as containing significant agricultural resources to urban uses and would contribute to
incremental urbanization of a predominantly rural area sustaining existing agricultural land uses.
As such, the Project would result in a significant, unavoidable, adverse impact to agricultural
resources of both local and regional importance. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.3-4.)
In addition, development of the Project would potentially result in significant urban/rural land
use conflicts between the planned development and existing agricultural uses surrounding the
project site. Conflicts would potentially include fertilizer and pesticide application drift into the
proposed residential area, residential complaints about noise, odor and dust resulting from site
preparation activities associated with adjacent agricultural uses, and increased trespassing onto
agricultural lands. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5.3-a, would serve to alleviate land
use conflicts associated with new residential development and existing agricultural land uses.
Further, fencing and vegetation set-backs contained in the Specific Plan will help to reduce
potential inconsistencies with surrounding agricultural land. However, potentially significant
impacts to sustained agricultural resources would result from the Project, as the identified land
use conflicts associated with urbanization of agricultural lands may ultimately result in making
agricultural operations more difficult to sustain, and thereby more susceptible to conversion over
time, resulting in cumulative impacts to agricultural resources of the area. (Ibid.)
Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts to Agricultural Resources by the Project will be
significant, unavoidable and immitigable. 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 would occur. In summary, the Project, when combined
with many of the cumulatively considerable projects listed in Table 6.0-1 of the RDEIR2, would
contribute to a significant, immitigable cumulative impact to agricultural resources. 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. (Ibid.)
Refer to Section 5.3 of the RDEIR2 for additional detail.
5.9. Transportation/Circulation
78
Impact: Would the Project cumulatively exceed a level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (RDEIR2, at p. 5.9-
10.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
substantially lessen, but do not completely avoid, the significant environmental effect associated
with implementation of the Specific Plan. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091 subd. (a)(1).)
Beyond the mitigation measures identified below, specific economic, legal, social, technological,
or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or Project alternatives that would
completely reduce this impact to a less than significant impact. The Project will result in an
unavoidable signi9ficant adverse impact to cumulative traffic/circulation conditions. (RDEIR2,
at p. 5.9-64.)
Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measures 5.9-a, 5.9-b, 5.9-c, 5.9-d, and 5.9-e.
Explanation: Implementation of the mitigation measures included in Section 5.9.5 of the
RDEIR2 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
immitigable 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. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.9-64; &pp. 6-15) 16.)
Refer to Section 5.9 of the RDEIR2 for additional detail.
5.10 Air Quality:
Impact: Will the Project be occupied by sensitive receptors within a quarter mile of an existing
facility that emits air toxies identified in District Rule 1401 or near CO hot spots? (RDEIR2, at
p. 5.10-29)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
substantially lessen, but do not completely avoid, the significant environmental effect associated
with implementation of the Specific Plan. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091 subd. (a)(1).)
Beyond the mitigation measures identified below, specific economic legal, social, technological,
or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives that would
completely reduce this impact to a less than significant impact. The Project will result in an
unavoidable significant adverse impact to the sensitive receptors within a quarter mile of an
existing facility that emits air toxics identified in District Rule 1401 or is near CO hot spots.
(RDEIR2 at p. 5.10-54.)
79
Mitigation Measure:
5.10-e To mitigate 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
(TUMF and City of San Jacinto fees). TUMF provides a key funding source for General Plan
improvements within the Project area, including the recommended improvements related to the
Ramona Expressway. It should be noted that this mitigation measure also appears as Mitigation
Measure 5.9-e. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-54.)
Explanation: Projects involving 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, Traffic, Transportation and Access of the RDEIR2) 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-41.)
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. (Ibid.)
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. (Ibid.)
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 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. (Ibid.)
80
Impact. Will the Project result in an individual, or 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), and will the Project violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (RDEIR, at p. 5.10-32,
43.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
substantially lessen, but do not completely avoid, the significant environmental effect associated
with implementation of the Specific Plan. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091 subd. (a)(1).)
Beyond the mitigation measures identified below, specific economic legal, social, technological,
or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives that would
completely reduce this impact to a less than significant impact. The Project will result in an
unavoidable significant adverse impacts to this environmental impact category. (RDEIR at p.
5.10-54.)
Mitigation Measures:
5.10-a Consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403, it is recommended 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 hours.
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.
(RDEIR2, pp. 5.10-517 52.)
5.10-b The following shall be adhered to during Project grading and construction to reduce ROC,
NOx, and CO from construction equipment:
81
a) Heavy-duty diesel-powered construction equipment manufactured after 1996
(with federally mandated "clean" diesel engines) should be utilized.
b) The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum practical size.
c) The number of construction equipment operating simultaneously shall be
minimized through efficient management practices to ensure that the smallest
practical 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 should be replaced by electric equipment. (RDEIR2,
p. 5-10-52.)
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
to the maximum extent feasible 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). (Ibid.)
5.10-d The applicant shall incorporate the following energy conservation measures into Project
building plans unless the applicant proves that incorporation of a specific measure is infeasible:
• Install low NOx water heaters and space heaters
• Install gas-insert fireplaces
• 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. (RDEIR, at p. 5.10-53.)
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.
• Develop, in coordination with the City of San Jacinto, public outreach programs
to promote alternative methods of transportation. (RDEIR, at p. 5.10-53, 54.)
82
Explanation: 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
the site. The cumulative effect of the proposed Project and other projects in the vicinity would
incrementally contribute to the South Coast Air Basin's levels of PM10, ROG,NOx, CO, 03 and
S02. Dust control measures implemented during grading operations would be regulated in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District
and the California Air Resources Board. The location of the Project within a non-attainment
zone for the above pollutants, when combined with other foreseeable projects within the area
would result in significant, unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts from both a short and
long term perspective. (RDEIR2, at p. 6-16.)
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 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 Project and other projects in the vicinity
would incrementally contribute to the SCAB's levels of 03 , 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, immitigable
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. (RDEIR2, at pp. 6-16, 17.)
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. Although such fugitive
dust would be short term and would only last during the duration of grading activity, such PM10
emissions could be considered problematic since they could cause a public nuisance or further
exacerbate the existing PM10 non-attainment situation in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB).
During construction, the Project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust).
SCAQMD Rule 403 does not require a permit for construction activities, per se, but rather, sets
forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites (as well as other fugitive dust
sources) in the SCAB. 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 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-37.)
83
Heavy equipment used during grading and construction would produce combustive emissions of
ROC, NOx, and CO which would exceed the SCAQMD's quantitative significance thresholds.
As indicated above in Table 5.10-4 of the RDEIR2, maximum construction-generated ROC,
NOx, and CO emissions in 2008-2009, NOx emissions in 2010-2011, and ROC and NOx in
2012-2013 would exceed the SCAQMD's quantitative significance thresholds. In order to
reduce these potential impacts, mitigation is provided (see Mitigation Measure 5.10-b).
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,
unavoidable air quality impacts due to anticipated ROC, NOx, and CO emission levels. (RDEIR,
at p. 5.10-38.)
One of the key ingredients contributing to ozone formation is solvents, commonly referred to as
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are found in architectural and industrial paints.
Many interior and outdoor paints used today contain high levels of VOCs to help them dry faster.
VOCs emit smog-forming chemicals into the air that are a major contributor to ground-level
ozone pollution. Lower VOC paints preserve both indoor and outdoor air quality and reduce the
incidence of eye or respiratory irritation from exposure to VOC fumes. The SCAQMD has
studied the cumulative VOC emissions from architectural painting operations and has found that
these exceed combined emissions from a variety of industrial operations. Regionally, historical
emissions from the application of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings during the
summer months, typically known as the peak painting and smog season, are estimated to be more
than 60 tons each day. As shown in Table 5.10-4, maximum construction-generated ROC
emissions of 1,178.49 pounds per day (anticipated to occur in 2013) would be substantially
above the SCAQMD's quantitative significance threshold of 75 pounds per day. These
emissions would be associated primarily with the application of architectural coatings (paint,
etc.). Because introduction of these emissions into the atmosphere would be potentially
significant, mitigation is required (see 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, unavoidable air quality impacts due
to anticipated ROC emission levels. (RDEIR, p. 5.10-38.)
Operations of the Project would produce significant ROC, NOx, CO, and PM10 emissions from
all combined residential and commercial project sources, including vehicular traffic, space eating
and cooling, water heating, and consumer products. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-38.)
Specifically, the 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 of the RDEIR2, 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 of the RDEIR2,
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.
84
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. (RDEIR2, at p. 5-
10.38.)
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
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. (RDEIR2, at pp. 5.10-38, 39.)
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 Mitigation Measure 530A. Even with implementation of Mitigation
Measure 5.10-d, long-term operational air quality impacts would be considered significant and
unavoidable. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.10-40.)
Refer to Section 5.10 of the RDEIR2 for additional detail.
SECTION V
RESOLUTION REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The range of projects to be included in the cumulative analysis encompasses "past, present, and
reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including those
outside of the control of the agency." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15130.) A cumulative effect is
deemed significant if the Project's incremental contribution to a cumulative impact is
"considerable." (Ibid.) A cumulative impact is not considered significant if the impact can be
mitigated to below the level of significance, by providing improvements and/or contributing
funds through fee-payment programs. The FEIR examines "reasonable options for mitigating or
avoiding any significant cumulative effects of a Project" (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15130).
The RDEIR2 presents a detailed analysis of cumulative impacts and the forecasting
methodology. A description of potential cumulatively considerable impacts is presented in each
environmental impact category. (Refer to Sections II, III and IV of this Resolution.)
85
SECTION VI
RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
An EIR must disclose the significant unavoidable impacts that will result from implementation
of a proposed project. An EIR should explain the implications of such impacts and the reasons
why the proposed project is being proposed, notwithstanding such impacts. Implementation of
the Project would result in the alteration of the physical environment. The Project includes
design features and proposes mitigation measures, where feasible, that either reduces or
eliminates some, but not all,potentially significant impacts to a level below significance.
Significant Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided If the Project Is Implemented
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant
impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures.
Development of the Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable project-
related and/or cumulative impacts:
• The Project will cause approximately 475 acres of Prime Farmland to be
converted to urban uses, thus resulting in the permanent loss of agricultural land. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.3-3-4.) This constitutes a significant irreversible environmental change. (RDEIR2 at p. 9-1)
Additionally, the Project will conflict with existing agricultural uses, constituting both an
individual and cumulative significant and unavoidable potential impact on those uses. (RDEIR2,
at p. 5.3-5.)
• Significant and unavoidable impacts resulting directly and cumulatively from
implementation of the Project with respect to Air Quality are: (1) peak construction activities
associated with the Project would generate emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds
(RDEIR2 at p. 5.10-12-13; 5.10-20); and (2) daily operations associated with the Project would
generate emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds, including CO hot spots. (RDEIR2, at p.
5.10-13-16; 5.10-20.)
• Significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts resulting from implementation of
the Project with respect to Land Use & Planning would result due to incompatibility of adjacent
land uses between the Project and ongoing Agricultural operations. Should land uses in this
portion of the City ultimately reflect the intended General Plan land use arrangement, it is likely
that the urban/rural land use compatibility issues would diminish. (RDEIR2, at p. 6-2.)
• Significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts resulting from implementation of
the Project with respect to Transportation/Circulation due to long-term impacts to traffic in the
western portion of the San Jacinto area. (RDEIR2, at p. 6-5.)
Commitment of Resources
In addition, 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
86
would permanently remove approximately 475.1 acres of land from local agricultural production.
However, the change in use is both planned and projected. The 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. Should the developer encounter any previously undocumented hazardous materials,
potential release of hazardous materials into the air or other natural systems could occur. Use of
these resources would represent an incremental effect on the regional consumption of these
commodities. Implementation of the Project would involve consumption of energy resources,
such as electricity and natural gas, derived from non-renewable sources such as fossil fuels.
(RDEIR2, at p. 9-1.) Chapter 9 of the RDEIR2 contains additional detail regarding the
commitment of resources.
SECTION VII
RESOLUTION REGARDING GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the EIR to address the growth-
inducing impact of the Project. RDEIR2 Section 8.0 evaluates the potential for the Project to
affect economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly
or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. (RDEIR2, at p. 8-1.)
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 the RDEIR2 analysis, a significant growth
inducement impact would occur if the Project, and all associated infrastructure improvements,
directly or indirectly removed obstacles to growth such that the induced growth would
significantly burden existing community services, the environment, or cause a demand for
General Plan Amendments. (Ibid.)
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 Project, on its own, would encourage or enhance the
likelihood of growth in the surrounding areas other than anticipated under the applicable general
87
plan. Therefore, while the Project will induce planned population growth in the area, 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. (Ibid.)
SECTION VIII
RESOLUTION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The City Council hereby declares that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives
identified in the RDEIR2 and described below. Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines
requires an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of
the Project, which could feasibly achieve most of its basic objectives, but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the EIR analysis. An EIR is not
required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project. Rather, an EIR must
consider a reasonable range of alternatives that are potentially feasible; an EIR is not required to
consider alternatives that are infeasible. In addition, an EIR should evaluate the comparative
merits of the alternatives. Therefore, this section of the RDEIR2 sets forth the potential
alternatives to the Project and evaluates them in light of the objectives of the Project, as required
by CEQA. (RDEIR2, at p. 10-1.)
A. Summary of Project Obiectives and Selection of Alternatives
The objectives of the Project are as follows:
• 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.
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.
Provide public and private recreational amenities for the benefit of residents of
this community and of the City of San Jacinto.
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 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.
88
Consider topographic, geologic, hydrologic, and environmental opportunities and
constraints to create a design that safely accommodates seismic and hydrologic
hazards.
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.
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 and encourages alternatives to
automobile use within the community. (RDEIR2, at p. 3-2, -9.)
Rationale for Selectin Potentiall Feasible Alternatives
The alternatives must include a no project alternative and a range of reasonable alternatives to
the Project if those reasonable alternatives would attain most of the Project objectives while
substantially lessening the potentially significant project impact. The range of alternatives
discussed in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason," which the State CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(f) defines as:
. . . set[ting] forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a
reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of
the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail
only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain
most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible
alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster
meaningful public participation and informed decision-making.
Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives
(as described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)([1]) are environmental impacts,
site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other
plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the project proponent
could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need
not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, and whose
implementation is remote or speculative.
89
For purposes of this analysis, the Project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to
which they attain the basic Project objectives, while significantly lessening any significant
effects of the Project. (RDEIR2, at p. 10-3.)
Alternatives Analysis:
The goal for evaluating any alternatives is to identify ways to avoid or lessen the significant
environmental effects resulting from implementation of the Project, while attaining most of the
Project objectives. (RDEIR2, at p. 10-3.) The City has included the following three alternatives
for consideration:
• No Project Alternative—No Development
• Existing General Plan Alternative, and
• Reduced Density Alternative. (RDEIR2 at p. 10-2; 10-3.)
Alternatives Not Selected for Analysis
Alternative Sites. It is required under CEQA that alternative site(s) be evaluated if any
feasible sites exist where significant impacts can be lessened. Since the applicant cannot
reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site, off-site
alternatives are considered infeasible. (RDEIR2 at p. 10-2.)
B. Alternative 1 -No Proiect Alternative/No Development
1. Description of Alternative 1 - No Proiect Alternative—No Development
The "No Project' alternative assumes that the Project site would not be developed and that
existing agricultural uses present would remain. (RDEIR2, at p. 10-3.)
2. Finding:
The City Council finds that Alternative 1 (the "No Project - No Development' Alternative) is
infeasible because it fails to meet most of the Project objectives.
3. Supporting Explanation:
The No Project/No Development Alternative will not fulfill the specific objectives of the Project
(see below for further detail). The comparative analysis between the Project and the No
Project/No Development Alternative is as follows:
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.
(RDEIR2, at p. 10-3.)
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
90
agricultural resources (such as would occur with the 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 site. Therefore, the No Project/No
Development alternative may not ensure that agricultural resources remain onsite well into the
future. (RDEIR2, at p. 10-4.)
Biological Resources. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in any
direct impacts to onsite biological resources. All impacts to biological resources present onsite
would be avoided. (Ibid.)
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
onsite would continue to exist and not pose a risk to structures due to the undeveloped nature of
the site. (Ibid.)
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 onsite which required excavation or heavy land disturbance, if
present, cultural resources may be impacted. (lbid.)
Paleontological Resources. This alternative would not involve disturbing any subsurface
geologic formations that could potentially support paleontological resources as would the
Project. It is not possible to predict the type of agricultural use that would remain on the site; if
future agricultural uses were to occur onsite which required excavation or heavy land
disturbance, if present, paleontological resources maybe impacted. (Ibid.)
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. (RDEIR2, at p. 10-5.)
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 contribution of TUMF fees from Project development.
(Ibid.)
Air Quality. The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid the air quality impacts
associated with site grading, construction, vehicular emissions and building operations. (Ibid.)
91
Noise. Noise impacts associated with the Project would be avoided by the No Project/No
Development 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 improved the existing and future noise environment. (Ibid.)
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. (Ibid.)
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. (RDEIR2, at
p. 10.6.)
Alternative 1 WOULD meet the following Project objective:
• Consider topographic, geologic, hydrologic, and environmental opportunities and
constraints to create a design that safely accommodates seismic and hydrologic
hazards. (RDEIR2, at p. 10-6.)
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.
• 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.
• Provide public and private recreational amenities for the benefit of residents of
this community and of the City of San Jacinto.
• 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 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.
92
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.
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 and encourages alternatives to
automobile use within the community. (RDEIR2, at p.10-6; 10-7.)
C. Alternative 2—Existing General Plan Designation Alternative
1. Description of Alternative 2—Existing General Plan Designation Alternative
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 Project
which would result in a total of 1,042 low density 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 10-8.)
2. Finding:
The City Council finds that Alternative 2 (the "Existing General Plan Designation Alternative) is
infeasible because it fails to meet many of the Project objectives. Further, the City Council finds
this Alternative is an environmentally inferior alternative.
3. Supporting Explanation:
The Existing General Plan Designation Alternative will not fulfill many of the specific objectives
of the Project (see below for further detail). The comparative analysis between the Project and
the Existing General Plan Designation Alternative is as follows:
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
93
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.
(RDEIR2, at p. 10-8.)
Agricultural Resources. This alternative would be similar to the Project in that it would
eliminate agricultural land use from the Project site. (Ibid.)
Biological Resources. This alternative would result in similar impacts as the Project as it would
eliminate existing biological resources onsite. This Project alternative does not provide for fewer
impacts to biological resources compared to the Project. (Ibid.)
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
Project, result in all significant impacts being mitigated. (RDEIR, at p. 10-9.)
Cultural Resources. Because the presence of undiscovered cultural resources is unknown for
both this and the Project alternative, risk of significant impacts would be the same as the Project.
It is anticipated that similar mitigation measures would be imposed as for the Project, which
would result in all significant impacts being mitigated. (Ibid.)
Paleontological Resources. Because the presence of paleontological resources is unknown for
both this and the Project alternative, risk of significant impacts would be the same as the Project.
It is anticipated that similar mitigation measures would be imposed and similar to the Project,
result in all significant impacts being mitigated. (Ibid.)
Water Resources and Water Quality. Similar water quality impacts would result under this
alternative as described for the Project. The site would likely be susceptible to the same flooding
and groundwater hazards as outlined for the Project. It is anticipated that application of
mitigation measures such as those required of the Project would have similar impact reducing
effects for this alternative. (Ibid.)
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. (Ibid.)
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 for a greater number of days. Therefore, this alternative is viewed as environmentally
inferior to the project due to anticipated greater air quality impacts. (RDEIR2, at pp. 10-9, -10.)
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.
94
Therefore, this alternative is viewed as environmentally inferior to the project due to anticipated
greater noise impacts. (RDEIR2, at p. 10-10.)
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. (Ibid.)
Hazards/Risk of Upset. Similar hazards would result under this alternative as anticipated for the
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 Project. (Ibid.)
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.
• Provide a development with unified 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.
• Provide a system of public and community facilities within residential
neighborhoods to support development in an efficient and timely manner.
• Integrate the project with the character of the surrounding community and
establish development that results in logical, coordinated growth. (RDEIR2, at p.
10-10, -11.)
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.
• 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.
95
Provide public and private recreational amenities for the benefit of residents of
this community and of the City of San Jacinto.
Incorporate recycled water from EMWD to supply the lake and irrigate
landscaping to minimize the use of potable 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.
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. (RDEIR2, at p. 10-11, -12.)
D. Alternative 3 - Reduced Density Alternative
1. Description of Alternative 3 —Reduced Density Alternative
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, IS 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 Project. (RDEIR2
at p. 10-12.)
2. Findin
The City Council finds that Alternative 3 (the "Reduced Density Alternative) is infeasible
because it fails to meet many of the Project objectives and fin-thermore, no substantial
advantages are offered by the Reduced Density Alternative when compared to the Project since
the Project would mitigate all significant public services/utilities and noise impacts to less than
significant levels.
3. Supporting Explanation:
The Reduced Density Alternative will not fulfill the specific objectives of the Project (see below
for further detail). The comparative analysis between the Project and the Reduced Density
Alternative is as follows:
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. (RDEIR2, at p. 10-12.)
96
Agricultural Resources. This alternative would be similar to the Project in that it would
eliminate agricultural land use from the site. This alternative does not provide for reduced
impacts to agricultural resources because it proposes development over the entire site. (RDEIR2,
at p. 10-12.)
Biological Resources. This alternative would result in similar impacts as the Project. All
significant impacts of the Project are mitigated through project-specific mitigation, and therefore
the alternative does not offer mitigation that is necessary to reduce significant impacts to less
than significant levels. The alternative's relationship with the Western Riverside MSHCP would
be similar as described for the Project. (RDEIR2, at p. 10-12, -13.)
Geology and Soils. Similar impacts related to seismic hazards would occur under this
alternative. It is anticipated that similar mitigation measures would be imposed and similar to the
Project,result in all significant impacts being mitigated. (RDEIR2, at p. 10-13.)
Cultural Resources. Because the presence of undiscovered cultural resources is unknown for
both the alternative and the Project, risk of significant impacts would be the same as the Project.
It is anticipated that similar mitigation measures would be imposed as for the Project which
would result in all significant impacts being mitigated. (Ibid.)
Paleontological Resources. Because the presence of paleontological resources is unknown for
both the alternative and the Project, risk of significant impacts would be the same as the Project.
It is anticipated that similar mitigation measures would be imposed and would similarly result in
all significant impacts being mitigated. (Ibid.)
Water Resources and Water Quality. Similar water quality impacts would result under this
alternative as described for the Project. The site would likely be susceptible to the same flooding
and groundwater hazards as outlined for the Project. It is anticipated that application of
mitigation measures such as those required of the 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 Project due to less intensity of land use.
Therefore, it is likely that this alternative would reduce potential water quality impacts compared
to the Project. (Ibid.)
Transportation, Circulation and Access. Similar to the 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 schools,
commercial/business park uses and housing units. While directional splits of traffic for this
alternative would be different than those of the Project, this alternative would result in
substantially less traffic to surrounding roadways. (RDEIR2, at p. 10-13, -14.)
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. (RDEIR2, at p. 14.)
97
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 alternative
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. (Ibid.)
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. (Ibid.)
Hazards/Risk of Upset. Similar hazards would result under this alternative as anticipated for the
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 Project. (Ibid.)
The Reduced Density Alternative WOULD meet the following Project objectives:
• Consider topographic, geologic, hydrologic, and environmental opportunities and
constraints to create a design that 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 and encourages alternatives to
automobile use within the community.
• 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.
98
• Provide a development with unified design elements, such as architecture,
landscaping, color palette, paving, walls, fencing, signage, and entry treatments.
(RDEIR2, at p. 10-15.)
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.
• 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.
• 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. (RDEIR2, at p. 10-15, -16.)
E. Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative, other than the No Project
Alternative, be identified in an EIR. Although the Reduced Density Alternative does not meet
many of the Project objectives, it would reduce traffic, noise, public services/utilities and air
quality impacts when compared to the Project. Consequently, this alternative is considered the
environmentally superior alternative. That said, no substantial advantages are offered by the
Reduced Density Alternative when compared to the 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 Project, and
would require a similar level of mitigation. As with the 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. (RDEIR2, at p.
10-17.)
SECTION IX
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the Guidelines Sections 15093 and
15043, the City has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the
Project, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, against
the following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Project and has adopted all
feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts: (1) Agricultural Resources, (2) Air
Quality; and (3) Cumulative impacts associated with Agricultural Resources, Air Quality,
99
Transportation/Circulation, and Land Use & Planning. The City also has examined alternatives
to the Project, none of which both meet the Project objectives and is environmentally superior to
the Project.
The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of
the Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above
may be considered "acceptable" due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the
unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the Project. Each of the separate benefits of the
Project, as stated herein, is determined to be, unto itself and independent of the other Project
benefits, a basis for overriding all unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in these
Findings. Each benefit set forth below constitutes an overriding consideration warranting
approval of the Project, independent of other benefits, despite each and every unavoidable
impact. Project benefits include:
• The Project proposes development that implements the goals and land use designations
contained within the City of San Jacinto General Plan and will provide a well balanced mix of
residential, commercial, and public facilities to meet the demand of the City's growing
population. (RDEIR2, at p. 5.1-16 through 5.1-36.)
• The Project includes a 62.2-acre high school which will be made available to the San
Jacinto Unified School District. This fits with the City's desire to provide a system of public and
community facilities, including school sites, parks, greenbelts, and lakes within residential
neighborhoods to support development in an efficient and timely manner, as well as meet the
needs of the Project residents and surrounding communities. (RDEIR2, at p. 3-14.)
• The Project provides approximately 43.0 acres of parks, 9.6 acres of paseos, a 5.1-acre
lake house and swim lagoon, and 11.0 acres of lakes. (RDEIR2, at p 3-15.)
• The Project provides for the establishment of housing within the City of San Jacinto, in
accordance with projected population increases, which is consistent with the scale and character
of surrounding areas. The Project will 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 sales prices to meet the changing economic and demographic profile of the City
of San Jacinto. (RDEIR2, at p. 3-2, -9.)
. The Project will develop an environment that is visually attractive, efficient, and
effectively organized, which includes a pleasing landscape palette and will be integrated with the
character of the surrounding community and establish development that results in logical,
coordinated growth. (RDEIR2, at p. 3-2, -9.)
• The Project will support existing and planned local businesses by providing an
increased customer base for local businesses. The increased customer base will also provide
increased sales tax revenues.
• The Project will provide meaningful and gainful employment during its construction.
During the projected 20-plus year build-out, the Project will increase employment through
construction, landscaping and sales related jobs. Longer term, employment will increase from
100
such jobs for maintenance, security, management and increase retail sales of goods and services
in the City of San Jacinto area.
• The Project will include the payment of development related fees for infrastructure.
The Project will increase revenues in the form of assessments, utility taxes, and sales taxes from
purchases by Project residents.
The City Council hereby declares that the RDEIR2 has identified and discussed significant
effects that may occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of the mitigation
measures discussed in the RDEIR2, these effects can be mitigated to a level of less than
significant except for unavoidable significant impacts as discussed in Section IV of these
Findings. The City Council hereby declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to
eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Project. The City
Council further finds that except for the Project, all other alternatives set forth in the FEIR are
infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of Project objectives and/or of specific
economic, social, and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh any environmental
benefits of the alternatives.
For the foregoing reasons, the City Council hereby declares that the benefits provided to the
public through approval and implementation of the Specific Plan outweigh any significant
adverse environmental impacts of the Project, and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable.
The substantial evidence demonstrating the benefits of the Project are found in these findings,
and in the documents found in the record of proceedings, discussed in Section XI below.
Therefore, the City has adopted this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
SECTION X
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL EIR
The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the FEIR in evaluating the proposed
Specific Plan, that the FEIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with
CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's local CEQA Guidelines and that the FEIR
reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
The City Council declares that no new significant information as defined by State CEQA
Guidelines, section 15088.5 has been received by the City after circulation of the RDEIR2 that
would require recirculation.
The City Council certifies the Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and
conclusions:
A. Findings:
The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR and will require
mitigation as set forth in Section IV of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance: Agricultural Resources (Project-related and cumulative), Air Quality (Project-
related and cumulative), Land Use & Planning (cumulative), and Transportation/Circulation
(cumulative).
101
B. Conclusions:
1. Except as to those impacts stated above relating to Agricultural Resources, Air
Quality, Land Use & Planning, and Transportation/Circulation, all significant environmental
impacts from the implementation of the proposed Project have been identified in the EIR and,
with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
2. Other alternatives to the proposed Specific Plan, which could potentially achieve
the basic objectives of the proposed Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of
the proposed Specific Plan.
3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived
from the development of the proposed Specific Plan override and make infeasible any
alternatives to the proposed Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those
incorporated into the proposed Project.
SECTION XI
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. In the event
of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation
Monitoring Program, the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall control.
SECTION XII
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROJECT
Based on the entire record before the City Council, including the above findings and all written
and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council hereby approves the Project
with all the mitigation measures and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan as set forth in
this Resolution.
SECTION XIII
RESOLUTION REGARDING CONTENTS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings
have been based are located at the City of San Jacinto, 595 South San Jacinto Avenue, San
Jacinto, CA 92583. The custodian for these records is the Planning Director. This information is
provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
102
The record of proceedings for the City Council's decision on the Project consists of the
following documents, at a minimum:
• The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the
Project;
• All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day
comment period on the original Draft EIR, and during the 45-day comment period
on the Recirculated Draft EIR;
• All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the
Project, in addition to timely comments on the Draft EIR;
• The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Villages at San Jacinto Specific
Plan, including comments received on the Recirculated Draft EIR, responses to
those comments, and technical appendices;
• The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project;
• All findings and resolutions adopted by the City Council in connection with the
Villages at San Jacinto Specific Plan Project, and all documents cited or referred
to therein;
• All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents
relating to the Project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible
or trustee agencies with respect to the City's compliance with the requirements of
CEQA and with respect to the County's action on the Villages at San Jacinto
Specific Plan;
• All documents submitted to the City (including the Planning Commission) by
other public agencies or members of the public in connection with The Villages at
San Jacinto Specific Plan, up through the close of the public hearing period;
• Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public
meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with The Villages at
San Jacinto Specific Plan;
• Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information
sessions, public meetings and public hearings;
• The City of San Jacinto General Plan and all environmental documents prepared
in connection with the adoption of the General Plan;
• Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to Federal,
State, and local laws and regulations;
• Any documents expressly cited or referenced in these findings, in addition to
those cited above; and
• Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources
Code section 21167.6, subdivision(e).
103
SECTION XIV
RESOLUTION REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of Riverside within five (5) working
days of final Project approval.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 4`h Day
of February, 2010 by the following vote:
Ayes: Ayres, Di Memmo,Mansperger, Potts
Nays: None
Absent: Stubblefield
Abstain: None
City of San Jacinto
teve Di Memmo, ice Mayor
ATTEST: l
Richard Miller, Interim City Clerk
104
EXHIBIT "A"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
[ATTACHED]
RVPUB\\767110.3
105