Hemet City Council
September 12, 2023

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
3-3 November 2022
2019-185
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-1 November 2022
2019-185

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Aesthetics

4.1.1 Environmental Setting
The Project Area is currently undeveloped and is located in the northeast portion of the City. The Project Area is bound by single family residential development to the north, south, and west and Park Hill to the east. The Project Area does not contain any structures; however, there are remnants of past structures in the Project Area including old foundations.

4.1.2 Visual Character of the Project Area

4.1.1.1 Scenic Vistas
The San Jacinto Mountains, the San Bernardino National Forest and Mountains, and the San Gabriel Mountains provide a scenic background of vista points that enhance the visual character of Hemet, highlight distinguishing landmarks, and offer a sense of direction or orientation as people move about the community. Preserving view corridors for the enjoyment of future generations through design and development standards is a goal of the City.

4.1.1.2 Scenic Landforms
Hemet contains and is surrounded by natural topographic beauty. Within the Planning Area are hillsides and hilltops with spectacular views. Unique landforms and hillsides include the hills at Diamond Valley Lake, Lakeview Mountains, Santa Rosa Hills, Tres Cerritos Hills, and Park Hill (City of Hemet 2012a). Park Hill is located adjacent to the Project Area. The hill climbs to an approximate elevation of 1,900 feet above mean sea level and provides scenic vistas of the Project Area and the region to the public (City of Hemet 2012a).

4.1.1.3 State Scenic Highways
The California Scenic Highway Program protects and enhances the scenic beauty of California’s highways and adjacent corridors. A highway can be designated as scenic based on how much natural beauty can be seen by users of the highway, the quality of the scenic landscape, and if development impacts the enjoyment of the view (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2019). There are no officially designated scenic highways in or near the City of Hemet (Caltrans 2019; City of Hemet 2012a).

4.1.3 Aesthetics (I) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-2 November 2022
2019-185
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
No Impact.

As stated previously, Park Hill is located adjacent to the Project Area, climbs to an approximate elevation of 1,900 feet above mean sea level and provides scenic vistas of the Project Area and the region to the public. From this scenic point of view the public can enjoy views of unique landforms and hillsides including the Domenigoni Mountains at Diamond Valley Lake, Santa Rosa Hills, Lakeview Mountains, and Tres Cerritos Hills. The Project Area sits at an approximate elevation of 1,600 feet above mean sea level.

Due to the elevation difference and the type of development proposed (single-family residential) the Proposed Project would not affect vistas of the scenic resources in the region. Additionally, the proposed development of single family lots would be a compatible development in the Project Area, which is developed with single-family homes to the north, south, and west. Development proposed under this Project would be of a similar size and scale to the existing surrounding development and would not result in substantial adverse effects to scenic vistas. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact.

The Project Area is bordered by Menlo Avenue on the south, Park Avenue on the east, and Girard Street on the west in the City. The Proposed Project is not located within a state scenic highway (Caltrans 2019).

There are no officially designated scenic highways in or near the City of Hemet (City of Hemet 2012a). The segment of SR-74 located 0.75-mile south of the Project Area is Eligible for scenic highway designation.

The nearest officially designated state scenic highway is the segment of SR-74 traversing the foothills to the east of the City limits, located approximately 7-miles east of the Project Area (Caltrans 2019).

Furthermore, there are no unique trees or trees of significant stature, unique rock outcroppings, or historic buildings of significance that would be affected by the Proposed Project. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views
of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-3 November 2022
2019-185
urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
The Project Area is located in an urbanized area with residential development to the north, south, and west. The Project Area is zoned Low Density Multiple Family Residential (R-2). The Proposed Project would require a zone change to Single Family Residential (R-1-6). The proposed development of single family lots would be a compatible development in the Project Area, which is developed with single-family homes to the north, south, and west. Thus, implementation of the Proposed Project would develop the Project Area to match the surrounding residential land uses and would increase the cohesive aesthetic style of the neighborhood since the Proposed Project would develop a vacant lot to be consistent with surrounding residential development. Therefore, the proposed residential subdivision would not result in substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings and impacts would be less than significant.

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Would the project create a new source of
substantial light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project would create new light or glare sources typical of single-family residential development and would be similar to the light and glare sources from the existing residential development to the north, south, and west. The Proposed Project’s lighting plan would be subject to review and approval by the City of Hemet to ensure compliance with the City’s General Plan, including Program CD-P-20. Program CD-P-20 requires lighting practices that reduce light pollution in new development areas and requires new lighting to cast light downward and reduced spillover lighting.

Development of each individual lot would also be subject to City review which would ensure light or glare do not adversely affect day or nighttime views. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.1.4 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
“Forest land” as defined by PRC Section 12220(g) is “…land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.”
“Timberland” as defined by PRC Section 4526 means “…land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-4 November 2022
2019-185
capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis.”
“Timberland zoned Timberland Production” is defined by PRC Section 51104(g) as “..an area which has been zoned pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, as defined in subdivision h.” There are no areas within the City designated or zoned as forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned timberland production. Hemet has two areas of land zoned for agricultural use, Light Agriculture and Heavy Agriculture. Areas within the City with existing agriculture designations are located in the northwestern and western perimeter of the City limits and are not located proximate to the Project Area.

According to the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Important Farmland Finder, the Project Area is classified as Urban and Built-Up Land. The Project Area is not located on or near Farmland, nor is it under a Williamson Act Contract (DOC 2021).

4.2.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources (II) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? No Impact.

According to the Riverside County Important Farmland Map, the Project Area is located on land classified as Urban and Built-Up Land. Urban and Built-Up Land is defined by the California Department of Conservation as land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be located on land classified as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (CDC 2017). No impact would occur.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-5 November 2022
2019-185
The Project Area is zoned Low Density Multiple Family Residential (R-2). The Proposed Project would require a zone change to Single Family Residential (R-1-6). The Project Area is not under a Williamson Act Contract (City of Hemet 2012a). No impact would occur.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact.

The Project Area is zoned Low Density Multiple Family Residential (R-2). The Proposed Project would require a zone change to Single Family Residential (R-1-6). The Project Area is not located on land designated for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned timberland production. No impact would occur.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact.

As stated previously, The Project Area is zoned Low Density Multiple Family Residential (R-2). The Proposed Project would require a zone change to Single Family Residential (R-1-6). Therefore, the Project Area is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. The Project Area is located on an undeveloped lot surrounded by residential development on the north, south, and west. The Proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-6 November 2022
2019-185
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
No Impact.

The Project Area and surrounding properties are not currently used for agriculture. The California Department of Conservation has mapped the Project Area and properties immediately to the north, south, and west as Urban and Built-Up Land and the property immediately to the east of the Project Area as Other Land (CDC 2017). The Project Area is also not mapped or zoned for forest land. No impact would occur.

4.2.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.3 Air Quality

4.3.1 Environmental Setting
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the CARB have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The six criteria pollutants are ozone (O3) (O3 precursor emissions include nitrogen oxide [NOx] and reactive organic gases [ROG]), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The SoCAB region is designated as a nonattainment area for the federal O3 and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O3, particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and PM2.5.

The local air quality agency affecting the SoCAB is the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which is charged with the responsibility of implementing air quality programs and ensuring that national and State ambient air quality standards are not exceeded and that air quality conditions are maintained in the SoCAB. In an attempt to achieve national and State ambient air quality standards and maintain air quality, the air district has completed the several air quality attainment plans and reports, which together constitute the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the portion of the SoCAB encompassing the Proposed Project.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-7 November 2022
2019-185
The SCAQMD has also adopted various rules and regulations for the control of stationary and area sources of emissions. Provisions applicable to the Proposed Project are summarized as follows:
• Rule 402 (Nuisance) – This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
• Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) – This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below:
a) Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. b) All onsite roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
c) All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
e) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.
• Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and endusers of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories.

4.3.2 Air Quality (III) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-8 November 2022
2019-185
Less than Significant Impact.

As previously mentioned, the Project Area is located within the SoCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment. In order to reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The 2016 AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving state (California) and national air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, CARB, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the EPA. The plan’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. (SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans.) The Proposed Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMP.

According to the SCAQMD, in order to determine consistency with SCAQMD’s air quality planning two main criteria must be addressed.

Criterion 1:

With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for a project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay of attainment.
a) Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new air quality violations? As shown in Table 4.3-1, Table 4.3-3, and Table 4.3-4 below, the Proposed Project would result in emissions that would be below the SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds during both construction and operations. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations and would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards.
b) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP?
As shown in Table 4.3-1 and Table 4.3-4 below the Proposed Project would be below the SCAQMD regional thresholds for construction and operations. Because the Proposed Project would result in less than significant regional emission impacts, it would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or AQMP emissions reductions.

Criterion 2:

With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and SCAG air quality policies, it is important to recognize that air quality planning within the SoCAB focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD’s second

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-9 November 2022
2019-185
criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether or not the Proposed Project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented its air quality planning documents. Determining whether or not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2016 AQMP involves the evaluation of the three criteria outlined below. The following discussion provides an analysis of each of these criteria. a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the 2016 AQMP? A project is consistent with regional air quality planning efforts in part if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment assumptions that were used in the development of the SCAQMD air quality plans. Generally, three sources of data form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions in Hemet. Specifically, SCAG’s Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) provides regional population forecasts for the region and SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth. SCAG references Hemet’s 2030 General Plan to assist forecasting future growth in Hemet.

The Proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and development density presented in the General Plan. The Project Area is designated by the General Plan as LMDR. The primary purpose of lands designated LMDR is to provide residential housing at a density of 5.1 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre.

The Proposed Project is for the development of 51 lots that will support residential units and is therefore consistent with the City General Plan designation of LMDR. The Proposed Project does not involve any uses that would increase population beyond what is considered in the General Plan and, therefore, would not affect City-wide plans for population growth at the Project Area. Thus, the Proposed Project is consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the Project Area vicinity in the General Plan and RCPG. As a result, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the land use assumptions or exceed the population or job growth projections used by SCAQMD to develop the 2016 AQMP. The City’s population, housing, and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City; and these are used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into their air quality planning efforts, it can be concluded that the Proposed Project would be consistent with the projections. (SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans.) Therefore, the Proposed Project would be considered consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of SCAQMD’s air quality plans.
b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? In order to further reduce emissions, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with emission reduction measures promulgated by the SCAQMD, such as SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, and 1113. SCAQMD Rule 402 prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires fugitive dust sources to implement Best Available Control Measures for all sources, and

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-10 November 2022
2019-185
all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. SCAQMD Rule 403 is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. SCAQMD 1113 requires manufacturers, distributors, and end-users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories. As such, the Proposed Project meets this consistency criterion.
c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth by SCAQMD air quality planning efforts?
The AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and development density presented in the City’s General Plan and therefore would not exceed the population or job growth projections used by the SCAQMD to develop the AQMP.

In conclusion, the determination of AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long-term influence of a project on air quality. The Proposed Project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards. The Proposed Project’s long-term influence would also be consistent with the goals and policies of the SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP.

The Proposed Project would be consistent with the emission-reduction goals of the 2016 AQMP. A less than significant impact would occur.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less than Significant Impact.

By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s individual emissions exceed its identified significance thresholds, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be cumulatively considerable. Projects that do not exceed significance thresholds would not be considered to have a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts.

A portion of the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts are attributable to construction activities. The majority of the long-term air quality impacts will be due to the operation of motor vehicles traveling to and from the Project Area. For purposes of impact assessment, air quality impacts have been separated into construction impacts and operational impacts.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-11 November 2022
2019-185
Regional Construction Emission Impacts
Construction associated with the Proposed Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants, including ROG, CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. The largest amount of ROG, CO, and NOX emissions would occur during the earthwork phase. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur from fugitive dust (due to earthwork and excavation) and from construction equipment exhaust. Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the Project Area, emissions produced onsite as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to and from the Project Area. Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but have the potential to represent a significant air quality impact.

During construction activities, the Proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). The purpose of this rule is to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. Accordingly, these rules include specific measures to be employed to prevent and reduce fugitive dust emissions from anthropogenic sources. For instance, the Project applicant would be required to follow PM10 suppression techniques. Construction activities anywhere within the regulatory jurisdiction of the SCAQMD, including the Project Area, must follow the techniques summarized below.

1. Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.

2. All onsite roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.

3. All material transported offsite will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

4. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.

5. Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

The SCAQMD identifies significance thresholds for ROG, CO, and NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Constructiongenerated O3 precursor emissions associated with the Proposed Project were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Predicted maximum annual construction-generated emissions of criteria air pollutants for the Proposed Project are summarized in Table 4.3-1.

Table 4.3-1. Construction-Related Emissions (Regional Significance Analysis) Construction
Year
Pollutant (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction in 2020 15.73 50.26 34.92 0.06 8.31 5.35

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-12 November 2022
2019-185
Table 4.3-1. Construction-Related Emissions (Regional Significance Analysis) Construction
Year
Pollutant (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction in 2021 15.37 32.44 34.50 0.06 2.02 1.70
SCAQMD Regional
Significance
Threshold
75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for Model Data Outputs.

Notes: Emission reduction/credits for construction emissions are applied based on the required implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403. The specific Rule 403 measures applied in CalEEMod include the following: sweeping/cleaning adjacent roadway access areas daily; washing equipment tires before leaving the construction site; water exposed surfaces three times daily; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.

Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied.

Building construction, paving, and painting assumed to occur simultaneously.

As shown in Table 4.3-1, construction-generated emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. A less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. No mitigation is required.

Construction Localized Significance Threshold
The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences located approximately 25 feet west of the Project Area. In order to identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing localized significance thresholds (LSTs) for construction. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with proposed projects.

For this Proposed Project, the appropriate source receptor area (SRA) for the localized significance thresholds is the Hemet/San Jacinto source receptor area (SRA 28) as this source receptor area includes the Project Area. The Proposed Project would disturb approximately 13 acres total during construction.

The SCAQMD has produced look-up tables for projects that disturb less than or equal to five acres daily.

The SCAQMD has also issued guidance on applying CalEEMod emissions software to LSTs for projects greater than five acres. Because CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each of the equipment, Table 4.3-2 is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed-acreage for comparison to LSTs.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-13 November 2022
2019-185
Table 4.3-2. Equipment-Specific Grading Rates
Construction
Phase
Equipment
Type
Acres
Graded/Disturbed per
8-Hour Day
Equipment
Quantity
Operating
Hours per
Day
Acres
Graded
per Day
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired
Dozers 0.5 3 8 1.5
Tractors/
Loaders/
Backhoes

0.5 4 8 2.0
Total 3.5
Grading
Excavators 0.0 2 8 0.0
Rubber Tired
Dozer 0.5 1 8 0.5
Graders 0.5 1 8 0.5
Scrapers 1 2 8 2.0
Tractors/
Loaders/
Backhoes

0.5 2 8 1.0
Total 4.0
Maximum Total Acres Graded per Day 4.0
As shown in Table 4.3-2, implementation of the Proposed Project could disturb up to 3.5 acres daily during site preparation, and 4.0 acres daily during the grading. Therefore, the grading phase of construction represents the most potent ground-disturbing construction activities. Thus, the LST threshold value for a 4.0-acre site was calculated using the information provided from the LST lookup tables. The nearest sensitive receptors are residences located approximately 25 feet (8 meters) from the proposed development area. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. Notwithstanding, the SCAQMD Methodology explicitly states: It is possible that a project may have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters. Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters were utilized in this analysis.

The SCAQMD’s methodology clearly states that “off-site mobile emissions from a project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only emissions included in the CalEEMod onsite emissions outputs were considered. Table 4.3-3 presents the results of localized emissions during Project Area grading, which is construction activity that disturbs the most area daily. Localized emissions generated during both site preparation and grading are disclosed as these activities can generate substantial amounts of localized pollutants. The LSTs reflect a maximum disturbance of 4.0 acres per day at 25 meters for the Proposed Project. LST significance thresholds for 4.0 acres of disturbance per day was interpolated from the 2.0- and 5.0-acre thresholds.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-14 November 2022
2019-185
Table 4.3-3. Construction-Related Emissions (Localized Significance Analysis) Activity Pollutant (pounds per day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Project Area
Preparation 42.42 21.51 8.19 5.31
Project Area
Grading 50.20 31.96 5.05 3.19
SCAQMD Localized
Significance
Threshold
325.33 1,676.67 11.00 6.67
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for Model Data Outputs.

Notes: Emission reduction/credits for construction emissions are applied based on the required implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403. The specific Rule 403 measures applied in CalEEMod include the following: sweeping/cleaning adjacent roadway access areas daily; washing equipment tires before leaving the construction site; water exposed surfaces three times daily; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.

Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied.

Building construction, paving, and painting assumed to occur simultaneously.

Table 4.3-3 shows that the emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. No mitigation is required.

Regional Operational Emission Impacts
Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants such as PM10, PM2.5, CO, and SO2 as well as O3 precursors such as ROG and NOX. Projectgenerated increases in emissions would be predominantly associated motor vehicle use.

The SCAQMD identifies significance thresholds for ROG, CO, and NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Operationalgenerated O3 precursor emissions associated with the Proposed Project were calculated using CalEEMod.

Predicted maximum annual operational-generated emissions of criteria air pollutants for the Proposed Project are summarized in Table 4.3-4.

As indicated in Table 4.3-4, operational-generated emissions would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. A less than significant impact would occur as a result of operation of the Proposed Project. No mitigation is required.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-15 November 2022
2019-185
Table 4.3-4. Operational-Related Emissions (Regional Significance Analysis) Emission Source
Pollutant (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Summer Emissions
Area 25.67 1.11 30.15 0.07 3.92 3.92
Energy 0.05 0.39 0.17 0.00 0.03 0.03
Mobile 1.02 7.33 12.23 0.05 3.72 1.02
Total 26.74 8.83 42.59 0.12 7.67 4.97
SCAQMD Regional
Significance
Threshold
55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No
Winter Emissions
Area 25.67 1.11 30.15 0.07 3.92 3.92
Energy 0.046 0.39 0.17 0.00 0.03 0.03
Mobile 0.87 7.34 10.61 0.05 3.72 1.02
Total 26.59 8.84 40.93 0.12 7.67 4.97
SCAQMD Regional
Significance
Threshold
55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for Model Data Outputs.

Operational Localized Significance Threshold
According to the SCAQMD localized significance threshold methodology, LSTs would apply to the operations of a project only if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The Proposed Project does not include such uses. Therefore, in the case of the Proposed Project, the operational LST protocol is not applicable.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Less than Significant Impact.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-16 November 2022
2019-185
Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses.

Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences located approximately 25 feet away from the Project Area.

Construction-Generated Air Contaminants
Construction-related activities would result in temporary, short-term project-generated emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for Project Area preparation (e.g., clearing, grading); paving; and other miscellaneous activities. For construction activity, DPM is the primary toxic air contaminant (TAC) of concern. Particulate exhaust emissions from diesel-fueled engines (i.e., DPM) were identified as a TAC by the CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM, as discussed below, outweighs the potential for all other health impacts (i.e., non-cancer chronic risk, short-term acute risk) and health impacts from other TACs. Accordingly, DPM is the focus of this discussion.

Based on the emission modeling conducted the maximum construction-related emissions of exhaust PM2.5, considered a surrogate for DPM, would be 2.20 pounds per day during 2020 construction activities and 1.62 pounds per day during 2021 construction activities (see Appendix A). PM2.5 is considered a surrogate for DPM because more than 90 percent of DPM is less than 1 microgram in diameter and therefore is a subset of particulate matter under 2.5 microns in diameter (i.e., PM2.5). Most PM2.5 derives from combustion, such as use of gasoline and diesel fuels by motor vehicles. Furthermore, even during the most intense month of construction, emissions of DPM would be generated from different locations within the Project Area, rather than a single location, because different types of construction activities (e.g., site preparation, grading, paving) would not occur at the same place at the same time.

The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for any exposed receptor. Thus, the risks estimated for an exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions, should be based on a 70-, 30-, or nine-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the Proposed Project. Consequently, an important consideration is the fact that construction of the Proposed Project is anticipated to last approximately one year, and that on a day-to-day basis construction activity generally spans eight hours as opposed to throughout the entire 24-hour day. Thus, construction of the Proposed Project would not last nine consecutive years, the minimum duration of exposure from which to calculate health risk.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-17 November 2022
2019-185
Therefore, considering the relatively low mass of DPM emissions that would be generated during even the most intense season of construction and the temporary nature of construction activities, constructionrelated TAC emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial amounts of air toxics.

Furthermore, the Proposed Project has been evaluated against the SCAQMD’s LSTs for construction. As previously stated, LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4) and can be used to assist lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with project-specific level of proposed projects. As shown in Table 4.3-3, the emissions of pollutants on the peak day of construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.

Operational Air Contaminants
Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at intersections. Concentrations of CO are a direct function of the number of vehicles, length of delay, and traffic flow conditions. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations close to congested intersections that experience high levels of traffic and elevated background concentrations may reach unhealthy levels, affecting nearby sensitive receptors. Given the high traffic volume potential, areas of high CO concentrations, or hot spots, are typically associated with intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the peak commute hours. However, transport of this criteria pollutant is extremely limited, and CO disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. Furthermore, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly more stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Project Area vicinity have steadily declined.

Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard. The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the SCAQMD’s 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (SCAQMD 1992) in Southern California can be used to demonstrate the potential for CO exceedances. The South Coast CO hot spot analysis was conducted for four busy intersections in Los Angeles County during the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections evaluated included Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway (Lynwood), Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue (Westwood), Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue (Hollywood), and La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard (Inglewood). The busiest intersection evaluated was at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, which has a traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority evaluated the level of service in the vicinity of the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection and found it to be level of service (LOS) E at peak morning traffic and LOS F at peak afternoon traffic. Even with the inefficient LOS and volume of traffic, the CO analysis concluded that there was no violation of CO standards (SCAQMD 1992).

According to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Proposed Project (Urban Crossroads 2019), the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate 481 daily trips on average. Because the Proposed Project

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-18 November 2022
2019-185
would not increase traffic volumes at any intersection by more than 100,000 vehicle trips per day, there is no likelihood of the Proposed Project traffic exceeding CO values. The impact is less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
Less than Significant Impact.

Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word strong to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air. When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.

Construction Impacts
During construction, the Proposed Project presents the potential for generation of objectionable odors in the form of diesel exhaust in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, these emissions are short-term in nature and will rapidly dissipate and be diluted by the atmosphere downwind of the emission sources.

Additionally, odors would be localized and generally confined to the construction area. Therefore, construction odors would result in a less than significant impact related to odor emissions.

Operational Impacts
The land uses generally identified as sources of odors include wastewater treatment plants, wastewater pumping facilities, sanitary landfills, transfer stations, composting facilities, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing and fiberglass manufacturing facilities, painting/coating operations, rendering plants, coffee roasters, food processing facilities, confined animal facilities, feedlots, dairies, green waste and recycling operations, and metal smelting plants. If a source of odors is proposed to be located near existing or planned sensitive receptors, this could have the potential to cause operationalrelated odor impacts. The Proposed Project does not include any of these land uses or similar land uses.

The operational impact is less than significant.

4.3.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-19 November 2022
2019-185

4.4 Biological Resources
A Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis (Appendix B; ECORP 2019a) and Aquatic Resources Delineation (Appendix C; ECORP 2019b) were prepared for the Proposed Project. The results of these reports are presented in the following section.

4.4.1 Environmental Setting
The Project Area consists of a vacant parcel containing ruderal vegetation that is heavily disturbed by substantial amounts of trash dumping and off-highway vehicle use. Remnant concrete pads, an asphalt road, and structure foundations are present throughout the Project Area (ECORP 2019a).

4.4.1.1 Vegetation Communities
The Project Area is within an urban environment that is generally subjected to repeated and ongoing disturbance from human activities. No native or non-native vegetation communities were identified within the Project Area. The entire Project Area was classified as disturbed. Disturbed is not a vegetation classification, but rather a land cover type. The dominant plant species observed within the Project Area were nonnative or invasive weedy species. A single small patch of native California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) was identified near the eastern edge of the Project Area but was of insufficient size to be classified as a vegetation community. Of the 19 plant species observed within the Project Area, twelve were non-native species. Large trees observed within the Project Area included non-native eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), pine (Pinus sp.) and palm (Washingtonia sp.) species. These large trees may serve as nesting sites for birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Soils throughout the entire site appeared to have been recently mechanically disturbed (ECORP 2019a).

4.4.1.2 Wildlife
The Project Area provided habitat only for species adapted to disturbances and urban environments. One reptile species was observed during the reconnaissance visit, western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis).

Eleven bird species were observed during the reconnaissance visit: California scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), rock pigeon (Columba livia), common raven (Corvus corax), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Five mammal species were observed, or signs of the species were observed: coyote (Canis latrans), domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) (ECORP 2019a).

4.4.1.3 Soils
Soil types within the Project Area consist of San Emigdio fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasional frost; San Emigdio fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded; San Emigdio loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes; and San Emigdio loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded (ECORP 2019a).

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-20 November 2022
2019-185

4.4.1.4 Special-Status Plants
There were 52 special-status plant species (of those, 8 are federally and/or state listed and 31 are covered by the MSHCP) that appeared in the literature review and database searches for the Project Area (ECORP 2019a). A list was generated from the results of the literature review and the Project Area was evaluated for suitable habitat that could support any of the special-status plant species on the list. All of the 52 special-status plant species were presumed absent from the Project Area due to a lack of suitable habitat (ECORP 2019a).

4.4.1.5 Special-Status Wildlife
The literature search documented 50 special-status wildlife species in the vicinity of the Project Area, 13 of which are federally and/or state-listed and 36 are covered by the MSHCP. Of the 50 special-status wildlife species identified in the literature review, two were found to have a moderate potential to occur and 13 were found to have a low potential to occur; the remaining 35 species are presumed absent from the Project Area due to lack of suitable habitat. Frequent mechanical disturbances on site, proximity to residential development, and the presence of anthropogenic influences on site likely preclude these species from occurring on or adjacent to the Project Area. The two species with a moderate potential to occur within the Project Area include Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) and western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus). None of the sensitive wildlife species with a potential to occur in the area were observed during the reconnaissance survey (ECORP 2019a).

Cooper’s hawk and western yellow bat have a moderate potential to occur within the Project Area because either habitat for the species occurs onsite and a known occurrence has been reported in the database, but not within five miles of the site, a historic documented observation was recorded within five miles of the Project Area; or a known recently documented occurrence has been reported within five miles of the site and marginal or limited amounts of habitat occurs onsite (ECORP 2019a).

Cooper’s hawk
Cooper’s hawk is an MSHCP Covered Species. Cooper’s hawks are commonly found in suburban habitats and will often nest in tall trees at habitat edges. Tall eucalyptus and pine trees suitable as Cooper’s hawk nesting sites were observed within the Project Area, including one observed to contain a previously used raptor-sized nest. While nesting trees occur both on and in the vicinity of the Project Area, no nesting occurrences have been mapped within five miles of the Project Area by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Therefore, the Cooper’s hawk has a moderate potential to occur within the Project Area (ECORP 2019a).

Western yellow bat
Western yellow bat is a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Species of Special Concern (SSC) but is not an MSHCP Covered Species. The western yellow bat is a tree-roosting species that is known to roost in native and non-native palm trees as well as cottonwood trees. Untrimmed palm trees and other broadleaf trees were observed within the Project Area and adjacent areas. While suitable roost trees occur both on and in the vicinity of the Project Area, no recent occurrences of western yellow bat

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-21 November 2022
2019-185
have been mapped within five miles of the Project Area. Therefore, the western yellow bat has a moderate potential to occur within the Project Area (ECORP 2019a).

Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), a CDFW SSC, was found to have a low potential for occurrence, and the Project Area is not located within a designated survey area under the MHSCP for burrowing owl.

However, it was determined that marginally suitable burrowing owl habitat was present within the Project Area (ECORP 2019a).

Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat
Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) is a federally-listed Endangered, state-listed Threatened, MSHCP Covered Species. While no suitable habitat is present for Stephens’ kangaroo rat within the Project Area, the Project Area is located within the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan Area (HCP) (ECORP 2019a).

4.4.1.6 Wildlife Movement Corridors
The Project Area was assessed for its ability to function as a wildlife corridor. The Project Area is very disturbed and surrounded by development to the west, south, and north. A large undeveloped area is located east of the Project Area; however, this undeveloped area is also surrounded by development and is isolated from large, contiguous blocks of native habitat. Additionally, the lack of vegetative cover and the urban nature of the project area would likely deter wildlife from moving through the area. Therefore, the Project Area would not be considered a linkage or corridor between conserved natural habitat areas (ECORP 2019a).

4.4.1.7 Western Riverside MSHCP
The Proposed Project consists of construction of residential buildings and associated parking lots, which is a covered activity under the MSHCP for areas outside of a subunits or criteria cells. Since development of the Project Area is a covered activity within the MSHCP, it is an allowable use that has been contemplated within the MSHCP. However, projects that are covered still need to comply with MSHCP requirements.

Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires assessment of the potential effects from the Project on biological resources. Such requirements include:

1. Compliance with the policies for the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools as set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP;

2. Compliance with the policies for the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species as set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP;

3. Compliance with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP;

4. Compliance with the policies for Additional Survey Needs and Procedures as set forth in Section

6.3.2 of the MSHCP.

The biological reconnaissance survey also assessed the Project Area for the four MSHCP requirements stated above.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-22 November 2022
2019-185

1. In accordance with the policies in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP (Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools), a habitat assessment was performed for riparian and riverine communities, vernal pools, and fairy shrimp. The Project Area did not contain vernal pool habitat, suitable habitat for fairy shrimp, or any riparian vegetation.

2. In accordance with the policies in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), the Project Area is not located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) or a Criteria Area.

3. In accordance with the policies in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP (Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines), the requirements do not apply to the Project Area or staging areas because the Project Area is not situated adjacent to any wildlands or MSHCP-designated Conservation Areas.

4. In accordance with the policies in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures), the RCA MSHCP Information Map revealed that the Project Area is not located within any survey areas including, amphibian, burrowing owl, mammal, narrow endemic plant, criteria species, or Delhi sands flower-loving fly species survey areas. Therefore, no further habitat assessments or surveys are required.

Although the Project Area does not contain suitable habitat for Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), the Project Area is located within the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan Area.

To offset impacts to the species, all applicants for development permits within the plan area must pay an impact and mitigation fee.

4.4.2 Biological Resources (IV) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

Special-Status Plants
The Project Area, consisting wholly of disturbed land, was devoid of native vegetation communities. The literature review and database searches identified 52 special-status plant species that occur near the Project Area but, due to elevational factors and the current lack of suitable habitat for special-status plant species within the Project Area, all of the special-status plant species identified in the literature review were presumed absent from the Project Area (ECORP 2019a). The removal of primarily nonnative ruderal vegetation within the Project Area would not contribute to the overall decline of any of the special-status

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-23 November 2022
2019-185
plant species identified in the literature review and database searches. No impacts to special-status plant species are anticipated from implementation of the Proposed Project.

Special-Status Wildlife
Of the 50 special-status wildlife species identified in the literature search, two species were found to have a moderate potential to occur: Cooper’s hawk and western yellow bat. Additionally, nesting birds protected by the MBTA may occur on the site. Potential impacts to these species are discussed below.

Cooper’s Hawk and Nesting Birds
The trees on and immediately adjacent to the Project Area could provide nesting habitat for Cooper’s hawk and other nesting birds and raptors protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. If construction of the Proposed Project occurs during the bird breeding season (typically February 1 through August 31), ground-disturbing construction activities could directly affect Cooper’s hawk and other birds protected by the MBTA and their nests through the removal of habitat within the Project Area, and indirectly through increased noise, vibrations, and increased human activity. Impacts to Cooper’s hawk and nesting birds (including those listed as having a moderate to low potential to occur at the Project Area) would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1.

Western Yellow Bat
Trees on and immediately adjacent to the Project Area provide potential roosting habitat for western yellow bat. Tree removal and ground-disturbing construction activities could directly affect western yellow bat through the removal of habitat within the Project Area and indirectly through increased noise, vibrations, and increased human activity. Impacts to western yellow bat would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2.

Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl was found to have a low potential for occurrence, and the Project Area is not located within a designated survey area under the MHSCP for burrowing owl. However, it was determined that marginally suitable burrowing owl habitat was present within the Project Area. Although no burrowing owls were observed during the site visit, due to the mobile nature of the species, it is possible that burrowing owls could use the site prior to the start of project construction activities. If burrowing owls are found to be using or nesting within the Project Area prior to the start of construction, direct impacts in the form of ground disturbance, vegetation removal, habitat loss, and mortality and indirect impacts from construction noise and vibrations may occur. Impacts to burrowing owl would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1.

Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat
While no suitable habitat is present for Stephens’ kangaroo rat within the Project Area, the Project Area is located within the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat HCP Area. To offset impacts to the species, all applicants for development permits within the plan area must pay an impact and mitigation fee of five hundred dollars ($500.00) per gross acre located within the parcel to be developed an any offsite areas that are disturbed resulting from related Project activities (City of Hemet Municipal Code 58-98[a-d]). Impact and mitigation

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-24 November 2022
2019-185
fees for single-family residential developments, wherein all lots within the development are greater than one-half gross acre in size, shall be $250.00 per residential unit. Further coordination with the RCA regarding the mitigation fee may be required. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Other Special-Status Species
An additional 13 wildlife species were found to have a low potential to occur due to the lack of highquality suitable habitat within the Project Area, none of which are state- or federally listed. The mechanical disturbances on site, proximity to commercial and residential development, and the presence of anthropogenic influences on site likely preclude these species from occurring on or adjacent to the site. If these species were present, impacts in the form of ground disturbance, vegetation removal, mortality, construction noise, and vibrations may occur. However, if these species were present within the Project Area, they would likely be in such low numbers that impacts to the species would not be considered significant, nor would they contribute to the overall decline of the species. Further, the MSHCP Covered Species with a low potential to occur are considered adequately conserved species under the MSHCP. The Proposed Project is not expected to result in significant impacts to any of the special-status species with a low potential to occur. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact.

The Project Area consists of disturbed and developed land that supports mostly nonnative grass and forb species. The Project Area does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities that would need to be preserved. No impacts to sensitive natural communities are anticipated to result from the development of the Proposed Project.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
No Impact.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-25 November 2022
2019-185
No state or federally protected wetlands were identified within the Project Area during the Aquatic Resources Delineation (ECORP 2019b). No impact would occur.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact.

The Project Area is located within and adjacent to areas containing existing disturbances (e.g., paved roads and residential development). The Project Area is heavily disturbed and/or developed and contains very little vegetative cover that would facilitate wildlife movement. No migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites were identified within the Project Area (ECORP 2019a). No impact would occur.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact.

Although the City is a participant in several broader plans and programs to protect biological resources, including the Western Riverside MSHCP and the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat HCP, the City does not have any local policies or ordinances for the protection of biological resources (ECORP 2019a). No impact would occur.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-26 November 2022
2019-185
Western Riverside MSHCP
The Project Area is located within the planning area for the Western Riverside MSHCP. The Project Area is not located within any Conservation Areas, Criteria Cells, or Subunit designations according to the MSHCP. The Project Area is also not located within any MSHCP-designated survey areas for special-status species.

Section 6.0 of the MSHCP requires assessment of the potential effects from a project on biological resources including riparian/riverine areas, vernal pools, and fairy shrimp, burrowing owl, and Narrow Endemic Plant Species. In addition, the MSHCP requires an Urban/Wildlands Interface analysis be conducted in order to address the indirect effects associated with locating proposed development in proximity of MSHCP Conservation Areas. These resources were assessed during the reconnaissance survey and are discussed below in relation to the Proposed Project.

The Proposed Project is a residential development, which is a covered activity under the MSHCP for areas outside of a subunits or criteria cells. Since development of the Project Area is a covered activity within the MSHCP, it is an allowable use that has been contemplated within the MSHCP. However, projects that are covered still need to comply with MSHCP requirements.

Riparian/Riverine, Vernal Pool, and Fairy Shrimp Habitat Assessment (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) In accordance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, a habitat assessment was performed for riparian and riverine communities, vernal pools, and fairy shrimp. The Project Area did not contain vernal pool habitat or suitable habitat for fairy shrimp. Additionally, no riparian vegetation was observed within the Project Area. No defined channels or drainages were identified within the Project Area and the Project Area did not contain any riverine resources. No impacts would occur.

Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Section 6.1.3)
The RCA MHSCP Information Map was reviewed to determine whether the Project Area or staging areas are located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area, in accordance with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. The Project Area is not located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area or a Criteria Area. Further, all of the plant species identified in the literature review were determined to be presumed absent from the Project Area due to the high level of disturbance and lack of native vegetation communities. No impact would occur.

Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP Section 6.1.4) The requirements for Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors do not apply to the Project Area because the Project Area is not situated adjacent to any wildlands or MSHCP-designated Conservation Areas. The Project Area is relatively isolated from larger, contiguous blocks of native habitat and completely surrounded by residential development, urban development, and other anthropogenic land use. A net long-term increase of edge impacts is not expected as a result of this Proposed Project.

No impact would occur.

Additional Surveys (MSHCP Section 6.3.2)

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-27 November 2022
2019-185
The RCA MSHCP Information Map was reviewed to determine if the Project Area was located with any other MSHCP designated survey areas. The Information Map revealed that the Project Area is not located within the amphibian species, criteria area species, burrowing owl, or mammalian species survey areas.

Therefore, no further habitat assessments or surveys are required.

Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat HCP
As previously mentioned, there is no suitable habitat is present for Stephens’ kangaroo rat within the Project Area; however, the Project Area is located within the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat HCP Area. To offset impacts to the species, all applicants for development permits within the plan area must pay an impact and mitigation fee of five hundred dollars ($500.00) per gross acre located within the parcel to be developed an any offsite areas that are disturbed resulting from related project activities (City of Hemet Municipal Code 58-98[a-d]). Impact and mitigation fees for single-family residential developments, wherein all lots within the development are greater than one-half gross acre in size, shall be $250.00 per residential unit. Further coordination with the RCA regarding the mitigation fee may be required.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

4.4.3 Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Preconstruction Survey for Nesting Birds: Any ground disturbance activities shall be conducted during the non-breeding season for birds (approximately September 1 through January 31) to avoid violations of the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code §§ 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. If activities with the potential to disrupt nesting birds, including Cooper’s hawk and burrowing owl, are scheduled to occur during the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist who is experienced in the identification of avian species and conducting nesting bird surveys. The nest survey shall include the Project Area and adjacent areas where project activities have the potential to cause nest failure. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted no more than three days prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities within the bird breeding season. If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If nesting birds (including nesting raptors) are found to be present, avoidance or minimization measures shall be undertaken to avoid potential project-related impacts. Measures may include establishment of an avoidance buffer until nesting has been completed and periodic nest monitoring by the project biologist. The width of the avoidance buffer will be determined by the project biologist. Typically, this is 300 feet from the nest site in all directions (500 feet is typically recommended by CDFW for raptors), until the juveniles have fledged and there has been no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. The monitoring biologist will monitor the nest(s) during construction and document any findings.

BIO-2 Preconstruction Bat Survey: Tree removal should take place outside of the bat maternity season (April 1 through August 31) where possible. A pre-construction bat survey shall be completed within the Project Area no more than 14 days prior to scheduled tree removal (at any time of year) to determine if roosting bats are present within the trees. If roosting bats are determined to be present during the maternity season, tree removal shall be postponed until the maternity season

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-28 November 2022
2019-185
is complete and young are volant. If individual roosting bats are determined to be present outside of the maternity season, the trees shall be removed using a two-step method where the outer limbs (or fronds) are first removed under the observation of a qualified bat biologist. After limb removal, 24 hours shall elapse before the remainder of the tree is removed.

BIO-3 Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Mitigation Fee: In accordance with City of Hemet Municipal Code 58- 98(a-d) and to offset impacts to the Stephens’ kangaroo rat, all applicants for development permits within the Stephens’ kangaroo rat fee assessment area must pay an impact and mitigation fee of five hundred dollars ($500.00) per gross acre located within the parcel to be developed an any offsite areas that are disturbed resulting from related Project activities. Impact and mitigation fees for single-family residential developments, wherein all lots within the development are greater than one-half gross acre in size, shall be $250.00 per residential unit.

Further coordination with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) regarding the mitigation fee may be required.

4.5 Cultural Resources
ECORP prepared a Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory for the Proposed Project to determine if cultural resources were present in or adjacent to the Project Area and assess the sensitivity of the Project Area for undiscovered or buried cultural resources (ECORP 2019c). The inventory included a records search, literature review, and field survey. The results of this report are present in the following sections. The Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory contains confidential information regarding locations of cultural resources and therefore is not available for public review.

4.5.1 Cultural Resources (V) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

A cultural resources records search was conducted at the Eastern Information Center at the University of California Riverside on October 11, 2019, using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).

The record search indicated that 25 previous cultural resources investigations have been conducted within one mile of the property, covering approximately 40 percent of the total area surrounding the property within the records search radius. The previous studies were conducted between 1985 and 2018. Of the 25 previous cultural resources studies conducted within the one-mile search radius, one study, a 2007 Phase I Assessment by Sara Clowery-Moreno of Brian F. Smith and Associates, encompassed the entire Project Area. The records search results also indicated that 20 historic period cultural resources have been

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-29 November 2022
2019-185
recorded within one-mile of the Project Area; however, none have been recorded within the Project Area (ECORP 2019c).

An intensive systematic pedestrian survey of the Project Area was conducted on October 15, 2019. One historic-period resource (HT-001) was recorded within the Project Area. No pre-contact (prehistoric) resources were identified within the Project Area during the field survey. HT-001 is a historic-period agricultural complex consisting of 13 features and one historic period artifact. This resource has been evaluated using California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility criteria. HT-001 is recommended as not eligible for listing in the CRHR under any criteria and the site is not considered a Historical Resource as defined by CEQA (ECORP 2019c). Because no Historical Resources were identified in the Project Area, demolition and/or removal of these resources by the Proposed Project would not result significant impacts to known Historical Resources. However, there always remains the potential for ground-disturbing activities to expose previously unrecorded cultural resources. If previously unrecorded historical resources are encountered during construction, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 are City of Hemet standard conditions prescribed for addressing the unanticipated discovery of historic, archaeologic, and/or tribal cultural resources during construction.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

No archaeological resources have been previously recorded on the site and none were recorded during the field survey (ECORP 2019c). However, surface sediments within the project area consist of Holocene alluvial gravel and sand. Holocene sediments are often considered to have the potential to contain subsurface cultural resources because they were deposited concurrently with human occupation of the region. The Project Area has been graded, plowed, and partially developed throughout the historic period.

Thus, any near-surface precontact sites that may have been present have likely been mixed, removed, or destroyed by agricultural and development activities. Therefore, although sediments within the Project Area have the potential to contain cultural material, the likelihood for the presence of subsurface archaeological deposits within the Project Area is considered low to moderate. If previously unrecorded historical resources are encountered during construction that could potentially be affected, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 would reduce impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 are City of Hemet standard conditions prescribed for addressing the unanticipated discovery of historic, archaeologic, and/or tribal cultural resources during construction.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-30 November 2022
2019-185
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

No formal cemeteries are located in or near the Project Area. Most Native American human remains are found in prehistoric archaeological sites. No prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded within the Project Area. No impacts to human remains are anticipated; however, if any are encountered during grading activities, impacts would be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-5 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

4.5.2 Mitigation Measures
CUL-1: Prior to ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), and the RPA shall conduct monitoring of all mass grading and trenching activities. The Project Archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed during Project construction.

CUL-2: A Cultural Resource Management Plan shall be developed by the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the contractor, and City, to address the documentation process for discovered resources, temporary storage of the items, limited non-destructive analysis, treatment and final disposition in accordance with CUL-4. The CRMP will be subject to the approval of the City. Details in the Plan shall include:
• The protocols and stipulations to be followed in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation.
• Treatment of inadvertent discoveries limited to basic recordation and non-destructive analysis • Pre-grading meeting with the City, the construction manager, and any contractors, including but limited to a mandatory Workers Environmental Awareness Program training (WEAP) to those in attendance. The Training will include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the Project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols.

CUL-3: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, and prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall secure an agreement with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-31 November 2022
2019-185
for Tribal Monitoring and the Treatment and Disposition of all tribally associated artifacts discovered within the project boundaries. Native American Monitor(s) from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians shall conduct monitoring of all initial ground disturbing activities associated with the project. The Native American Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed during project construction.

CUL-4: In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries:
• One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City:
o Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place is defined as avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources.
o Onsite reburial of the discovered items. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed. No recordation of sacred items is permitted without the written consent of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. The location for the future reburial area shall be identified on a confidential exhibit on file with the City, and concurred to by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians prior to certification of the environmental document.

CUL-5: Discovery of Human Remains: In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered in the Project Area during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors, project archaeologist, and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. The project proponent shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Hemet Planning Department immediately. The coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If human remains are determined as those of Native American origin, the applicant shall comply with the state relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC to determine a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The Disposition of the remains shall be overseen by the most likely descendant(s) to determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and any associated grave artifacts, in consultation with the property owner and the lead agency.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-32 November 2022
2019-185

4.6 Energy

4.6.1 Environmental Setting
Energy consumption is analyzed in this Initial Study due to the potential direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the Project. Such impacts include the depletion of nonrenewable resources (oil, natural gas, coal, etc.) during both the construction and long-term operational phases.

4.6.2 Electricity/Natural Gas Services
Southern California Edison provides electrical services to Riverside County through state-regulated public utility contracts. Southern California Edison, the largest subsidiary of Edison International, is the primary electricity supply company for much of Southern California. It provides 14 million people with electricity across a service territory of approximately 50,000 square miles.

The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas services to the project area. Southern California Gas services approximately 21.6 million customers, spanning roughly 20,000 square miles of California.

4.6.3 Energy Consumption
Electricity use is measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh), and natural gas use is measured in therms. Vehicle fuel use is typically measured in gallons (e.g., of gasoline or diesel fuel), although energy use for electric vehicles is measured in kWh.

The electricity consumption associated with all residential uses in Riverside County from 2014 to 2018 is shown in Table 4.6-1. As indicated, the demand has increased since 2014.

Table 4.6-1. Residential Electricity Consumption in Riverside County 2014-2018 Year Residential Electricity Consumption (kWh)
2018 770,552,258
2017 762,735,094
2016 719,665,548
2015 709,041,314
2014 677,662,793
Source: ECDMS 2019
The natural gas consumption associated with all residential uses in Riverside County from 2014 to 2018 is shown in Table 4.6-2. As indicated, the demand has increased since 2014.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-33 November 2022
2019-185
Table 4.6-2. Residential Natural Gas Consumption in Riverside County 2014-2018 Year Residential Natural Gas Consumption (therms)
2018 259,344,553
2017 254,262,566
2016 252,688,320
2015 224,847,393
2014 207,343,920
Source: ECDMS 2019
Total automotive fuel consumption in Riverside County from 2014 to 2018 is shown in Table 4.6-3. As shown, on-road and off-road fuel consumption have increased in the county since 2014.

Table 4.6-3. Automotive Fuel Consumption in Riverside County 2014-2018 Year Fuel Consumption (gallons)
2018 1,042,973,158
2017 1,046,699,604
2016 1,040,476,644
2015 1,026,168,109
2014 1,015,091,064
Source: CARB 2017

4.6.4 Energy (VI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
Less than Significant Impact.

The impact analysis focuses on the four sources of energy that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
electricity, natural gas, the equipment-fuel necessary for Project construction, and the automotive fuel necessary for project operations. Addressing energy impacts requires an agency to make a determination as to what constitutes a significant impact. There are no established thresholds of significance, statewide or locally, for what constitutes a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy for a proposed land use project. For the purpose of this analysis, the amount of electricity and natural gas

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-34 November 2022
2019-185
estimated to be consumed by the Proposed Project is quantified and compared to that consumed by residential land uses in Riverside County. Similarly, the amount of fuel necessary for project construction and operations is calculated and compared to that consumed in Riverside County.

The analysis of electricity gas usage is based on CalEEMod modeling for the Proposed Project (see Appendix A), which quantifies energy use for project operations. The amount of operational automotive fuel use was estimated using the CARB’s EMFAC2017 computer program, which provides projections for typical daily fuel usage in Riverside County. The amount of total construction-related fuel use was estimated using ratios provided in the Climate Registry’s General Reporting Protocol for the Voluntary Reporting Program, Version 2.1. Energy consumption associated with the Proposed Project is summarized in Table 4.6-4.

Table 4.6-4. Proposed Project Energy and Fuel Consumption Energy Type Annual Energy Consumption Percentage Increase Countywide
Electricity Consumption1 444,450 kilowatt-hours 0.06%
Natural Gas1 15,607 therms less than 0.01%
Automotive Fuel Consumption
One-Time Project Construction
Period2 84,962 gallons 0.008%
Project Operations3 66,276 gallons 0.006%
Source: 1Electricity and Natural Gas consumption calculated by ECORP using CalEEMod 2016.3.2; 2Climate Registry 2016; 3EMFAC2017
Notes: The Project increases in electricity and natural gas consumption are compared with all of the residential buildings in Riverside County in 2018, the latest data available. The Project increases in automotive fuel consumption are compared with the countywide fuel consumption in 2018, the most recent full year of data.

As shown in Table 4.6-4, the increase in electricity usage as a result of the Proposed Project would constitute a negligible increase of 0.06 percent in the typical annual electricity consumption and less than

0.01 percent in the typical annual natural gas consumption attributable to residential uses in Riverside County. Further, the Proposed Project would adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the Title 24 standards. Title 24 standards establish minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Implementation of the Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage. Due to the relatively low increase in electricity from the Proposed Project and the implementation of energy reducing strategies, the Proposed Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of building energy.

The Proposed Project’s gasoline fuel consumption during the construction period is estimated to be 84,962 gallons of fuel, which would increase the annual construction-related gasoline fuel use in the county by 0.008 percent during the time that project construction takes place. As such, the construction of the Proposed Project would have a nominal effect on local and regional energy supplies, especially over the long-term. Additionally, construction equipment fleet turnover and increasingly stringent state and

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-35 November 2022
2019-185
federal regulations on engine efficiency combined with state regulations limiting engine idling times and require recycling of construction debris, would further reduce the amount of transportation fuel demand during Proposed Project construction. For these reasons, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the Proposed Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects of this nature.

As indicated in Table 4.6-4, operation of the Proposed Project is estimated to consume approximately 66,276 gallons of automotive fuel per year, which would increase the annual countywide automotive fuel consumption by 0.006 percent annually. The amount of operational fuel use was estimated using the CARB’s EMFAC2017 computer program, which provides projections for typical daily fuel usage in Riverside County. This analysis conservatively assumes that all of the automobile trips projected to arrive at the Project Area during operations would be new to Riverside County. The Proposed Project would not result in any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive long-term operational automotive fuel consumption. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the Proposed Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.

For these reasons, this impact would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project would be designed in a manner that is consistent with relevant energy conservation plans designed to encourage development that results in the efficient use of energy resources. Relevant energy conservation plans specific to Hemet include the City General Plan, specifically the Housing Element and the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan, Western Riverside Council of Governments Economic Development and Sustainability Framework, and Western Riverside Council of Governments Subregional Climate Action Plan. An overarching goal of these policy documents is to encourage energy conservation activities throughout the City, to be achieved through several policy provisions. All development in Hemet, including the Proposed Project, is required to adhere to all Cityadopted policy provisions, including those contained in the General Plan Housing Element and Open Space and Conservation Element. The City ensures all provisions of these policy documents are incorporated into projects and their permits through development review and applications of conditions of approval as applicable. The Proposed Project would not conflict or obstruct any local or state plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

For these reasons, this impact would be less than significant.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-36 November 2022
2019-185

4.6.5 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.7 Geology and Soils

4.7.1 Environmental Setting
An Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report (Appendix D; LGC 2021) and Supplemental Geologic Fault Hazard Study (Appendix E; LGC 2018) were prepared for the Proposed Project. The results of these reports are presented in the following section.

4.4.1.1 Geomorphic Setting
The Project Area is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by steep, elongated valleys that trend west to northwest. The northwesttrending topography is controlled by the Elsinore fault zone, which extends from the San Gabriel River Valley southeasterly to the United States/Mexico border. The Santa Ana Mountains lie along the western side of the Elsinore, while the Perris Block is located along the eastern side of the fault zone. The mountainous regions are underlain by the Pre-Cretaceous, metasedimentary and metavolcanics rocks and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the southern California Batholith. Tertiary and quaternary rocks are generally comprised of non-marine sediments consisting of sandstone, mudstone, conglomerates, and occasional volcanic units (LGC 2021).

4.4.1.2 Regional Seismicity and Fault Zones
An active fault, according to California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, is a fault that has indicated surface displacement within the last 11,000 years. A fault that has not shown geologic evidence of surface displacement in the last 11,000 years is considered inactive.

The Project Area is located within the San Jacinto Fault zone (CDC 2019). The Casa Loma Fault was identified to traverse the Project Area from the northwest to the southeast. The Casa Loma Fault is a rightlateral strike-slip fault within the San Jacinto Fault zone (LGC 2018). The Casa Loma Fault line aligns with the northern edge of Street “A” as shown in Figure 3, Site Plan.

4.4.1.3 Soils
The Project Area is primarily underlain by undocumented artificial fill, older alluvium, and Bautista Formation bedrock (LGC 2018).

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-37 November 2022
2019-185

4.7.2 Geology and Soils (VII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
i) The Project Area is located within the San Jacinto Fault zone (CDC 2019). A Supplemental Geologic Fault Hazard Study was prepared for the Proposed Project (LGC 2018). The fault hazard study included subsurface exploration including three fault trenches that were excavated approximately 9 to 14 feet deep and ranging from 80 to 200 feet in length. The Casa Loma Fault was identified to traverse the Project Area from the northwest to the southeast. The Casa Loma Fault is a right-lateral strike-slip fault within the San Jacinto Fault zone. The fault study recommended a restricted use for human occupancy structures setback zone for the major active trace of the Case Loma Fault (LGC 2018). The Project Area lies within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The Proposed Project’s site plan has been designed to be in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, and includes a minimum 50-foot fault setback where no human occupancy structures would be allowed (see Figure 3 in Section 2). Furthermore, future construction of residential structures would be required to comply with current building codes and design standards which would reduce the risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from strong ground-shaking. The preliminary geotechnical investigation completed for the Proposed Project included several design and construction recommendations to address fault hazards within the Project Area. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Significant Impact.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-38 November 2022
2019-185
ii) Please see the response to question i, above. Impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Significant Impact.
iii) The potential for shallow ground rupture is considered probable on or near active faults within the Project Area. As previously stated, the Proposed Project’s site plan has been designed in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with a minimum 50-foot fault setback where no human occupancy structures would be allowed. Impacts related to ground rupture would be less than significant.

Liquefaction is a phenomenon where water-saturated granular soil loses shear strength during strong ground shaking produced by earthquakes. The loss of topsoil strength occurs when cyclic pore water pressure increases below the groundwater surface. Potential hazards due to liquefaction include the loss of bearing strength beneath structures, possibly causing foundation failure and/or significant settlements. Liquefaction is not a concern for the Project Area due to the relatively shallow hard bedrock and dense older alluvium and groundwater depth being greater than 50 feet (LGC 2018, 2021). No impact would occur.

No Impact.
iv) The Project Area is relatively flat. Landslides or surface failures were not observed on or directly adjacent to the Project Area (LGC 2018, 2021). No impact would occur.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Less than Significant Impact.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would require ground-disturbing activities, such as grading, that could result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Construction of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit, either through a waiver or through preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Best Management Practices (BMPs) are included as part of the SWPPP prepared for the Proposed Project and would be implemented to manage erosion and the loss of topsoil during construction-related activities (see Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality). The Proposed Project’s grading plan would also ensure that the proposed earthwork is designed to avoid soil erosion. Soil erosion impacts would be reduced to a less than significant impact.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-39 November 2022
2019-185
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant Impact.

As discussed in the responses to questions a) i) through iv) of this section, hazards associated with liquefaction, lateral spread, and landslides are not expected. Compliance with City procedures for plan check, permit issuance, and construction inspection would ensure that the Proposed Project is appropriately designed to minimize landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

Expansive or shrink-swell soils contain substantial amounts of clay minerals that swell when wet and shrink when dry. These clays tend to swell despite the heavy loads imposed by large structures. Damage (e.g., cracking of foundations) results from differential movement and from the repetition of the shrinkswell cycle. The preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared for the Proposed Project determined that Project Area soils have a medium expansion potential (LGC 2021). Current building code provisions are considered suitable for design at sites with expansive soils. Furthermore, the preliminary geotechnical investigation included several structural design and construction recommendations to address the expansive potential of the soils in the Project Area. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 expansive soil impacts would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-40 November 2022
2019-185
No Impact.

The Proposed Project does not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Proposed Project would be served by the regional sewer system operated by Lake Hemet Municipal Water District (LHMWD). No impact would occur.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

A paleontological records search was completed by the Vertebrate Paleontology Section of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (2019) and is included in Appendix F. The paleontological records search found that the Project Area’s surface deposits consist of older Quaternary Alluvium deposits, derived as alluvial fan deposits from Park Hill adjacent to the east or from the Santa Rosa Hills to the southeast. These deposits usually do not contain significant fossil vertebrates in the upper most layers in the Project vicinity, but may be underlain by older Quaternary sediments that may well contain significant vertebrate fossils. No vertebrate fossils localities were recorded within the Project Area boundaries; however, a vertebrate locality for older Quaternary deposits LACM 4540, was documented just west of Jack Rabbit Trail on the western side of Mt. Eden northwest of the Project Area. This deposit produced a specimen fossil horse (Equus). A second fossil locality documented in the project area is LACM 7261 located southwest of the Project Area near Skinner Reservoir. This fossil locality produced fossil specimens of mammoth (Mammuthus) and bison (Bison). In the very northeastern-most portion of the project area there are exposures of the Plio-Pleistocene Bautista Formation. The closest fossil vertebrate locality from the Bautista Formation is LACM 1715, located east-southeast of the Project Area near the mouth of Sand Canyon on the southwest side of the South Fork of the San Jacinto River. This fossil locality produced a fossil specimen of horse (Equus bautistensis). The next closest Bautista Formation locality is LACM 7062, located further to the southeast of the Project Area in Horse Canyon on the east side of Table Mountain south of Highway 74. This fossil locality produced fossil specimens of rabbit (Lagomorpha) and horse (Equus idahoensis) (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 2019).

Shallow excavations within the Project Area are unlikely to uncover significant fossil vertebrae remains, but deeper excavations that extend down into older Quaternary deposits as well as any excavations in the Bautista Formation in the very northeastern portion of the project area, may well uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains. In the event that substantial excavations are planned within the Project Area, the Proposed Project could result in significant impacts to unknown paleontological resources. With the implementation Mitigation Measure GEO-2 impacts would be less than significant.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-41 November 2022
2019-185

4.7.3 Mitigation Measures
GEO-1: The design and construction of the Proposed Project should adhere to the recommendations listed in the report titled Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report for the Proposed Single-Family Residential Development, Located at 800 North Girard Street, City of Hemet, Riverside County, California. Project No. G18-1647-10 and dated February 10, 2021, or more recent geotechnical report for the Project Area.

GEO-2: If substantial excavations are planned within the Project Area, the Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to determine if the older Quaternary deposits or Bautista Formation are being disturbed, and if paleontological monitoring is warranted. In the event of inadvertent paleontological findings, all work shall halt near the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find. If the resource is found to be significant then data recovery program shall be implemented by the qualified paleontologist. Identification of any paleontological resources shall include documentation and reporting with the appropriate paleontological data repository. The final disposition and location of any recovered materials shall be identified and funded by the Applicant and approved by the City.

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.8.1 Environmental Setting
The local air quality agency regulating the SoCAB is the SCAQMD, the regional air pollution control officer for the basin. To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in CEQA documents, SCAQMD staff convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group.

Members of the working group included government agencies implementing CEQA and representatives from various stakeholder groups that provide input to SCAQMD staff on developing the significance thresholds. On October 8, 2008, the SCAQMD released the Draft AQMD Staff CEQA GHG Significance Thresholds. On September 28, 2010, SCAQMD Working Group Meeting #15 provided further guidance, including a numeric bright‐line threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e annually and an efficiency‐based threshold of 4.8 metric tons of CO2e per service population (defined as the people that work, study, live, patronize and/or congregate within the Project Area) per year in 2020 and 3.0 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year in 2035. The SCAQMD has not announced when staff is expecting to present a finalized version of these thresholds to the governing board. The SCAQMD has also adopted Rules 2700, 2701, and 2702 that address GHG reductions; however, these rules are currently applicable only to boilers and process heaters, forestry, and manure management projects.

4.8.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (VIII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-42 November 2022
2019-185
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact.

Construction-Generated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A source of GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Project would be combustion of fossil fuels during construction activities. The construction phase of the Proposed Project is temporary but would result in GHG emissions from the use of heavy construction equipment and construction-related vehicle trips. The operational phase would also result in GHG emissions, predominately from vehicle trips to the Project Area.

Construction-related activities that would generate GHGs include worker commute trips, haul trucks carrying supplies and materials to and from the Project Area, and offroad construction equipment (e.g., dozers, loaders, excavators). Table 4.8-1 illustrates the specific construction-generated GHG emissions that would result from the Proposed Project.

Table 4.8-1. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Source CO2e (Metric Tons/ Year)
Construction in 2020 556
Construction in 2021 305
Total 861
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix G for Model Data Outputs.

Notes: Building construction, paving, and painting assumed to occur simultaneously.

As shown in Table 4.8-1, construction of the Proposed Project would result in the generation of approximately 861 metric tons of CO2e over the course of construction (approximately 12 months). Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease. The amortized construction emissions are added to the annual average operational emissions.

Operational-Generated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operation of the Proposed Project would result in GHG emissions predominantly associated with motor vehicle use. Long-term operational GHG emissions attributable to the Proposed Project are identified in Table 4.8-2 and compared to SCAQMD’s numeric bright‐line threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e annually.

Table 4.8-2. Operational-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Source CO2e (Metric Tons/ Year)
Construction Emissions (amortized over the 30-year life of the Project) 29

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-43 November 2022
2019-185
Table 4.8-2. Operational-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Source CO2e (Metric Tons/ Year)
Area Source Emissions 17
Energy Source Emissions 225
Mobile Source Emissions 769
Solid Waste Emissions 30
Water Emissions 25
Total Emissions 1,095
SCAQMD Screening Threshold 3,000
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No
Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix G for Model Data Outputs.

As shown in Table 4.8-2, operation of the Proposed Project would result in annual emissions of 1,095 metric tons of CO2e per year, which does not exceed the significance threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. As such, a less than significant impact would occur. No mitigation is required.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Subregional Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a strategic planning document that identifies sources of GHG emissions within the subregion boundaries (which include Hemet), presents current and future emission estimates, identifies a GHG reduction target for future years, and presents strategies, policies, and actions to reduce emissions form the energy, transportation and land use, water use, and solid waste sectors. The GHG reduction strategies in this document build on inventory results of GHG emissions by sector and by jurisdiction. Of the 12 jurisdictions analyzed in the document, Hemet is estimated to emit approximately 495,000 metric tons per year (WRCOG 2014). The CAP identifies a reduction goal of 49 percent below baseline emissions levels to set the WRCOG subregion, including Hemet, on a trajectory to meet statewide GHG reduction targets. The CAP then identifies numerous local reduction measures such as a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee and new building efficiency requirements.

Both the existing and the projected Hemet-related GHG inventories in the CAP were derived based on the land use designations and associated designations defined in the 2030 City General Plan. The Proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and development density presented in the General Plan. As previously stated, the Project Area is designated by the City’s General Plan as LMDR. The primary

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-44 November 2022
2019-185
purpose of lands designated LMDR is to provide low and medium density housing at a density of 5.1 to

8.0 dwelling units per acre. The Proposed Project proposes the development of 51 residential lots on what is currently vacant land and is therefore consistent with the City General Plan designation of LMDR. Since the Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan it is consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the site vicinity in the General Plan, and as a result, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the land use assumptions or exceed the population or job growth projections used by the City to develop the regional CAP strategies specific to Hemet.

The Proposed Project would not conflict with an adopted plan, policy, or regulation pertaining to GHGs.

Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

4.8.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.9.1 Environmental Setting
A material is considered hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, state, or local agency, or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. A hazardous material is defined by the California Health and Safety Code, Section 25501 as follows:
“Hazardous material” means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. "Hazardous materials" include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.

A hazardous material is defined in 22 CCR Section 662601.10 as follows:

A substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed.

Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (Group Delta) performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the Proposed Project to review, evaluate, and document present and past land use and practices, and visually examine site conditions to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) (Appendix H; Group Delta 2022). The Phase I ESA included a site reconnaissance, observation of adjacent properties, environmental regulatory agency records review, review of available historic documents, and an interview.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-45 November 2022
2019-185
The review of environmental regulatory agency records and available site history and records did not identify any environmental concerns for the Project Area. Records identified properties within 0.5 mile of the Project Area, however, based on type of regulatory listing, regulatory status of the case, and/or location with respect to regional groundwater flow, the likelihood of Site contamination from an offsite source is considered low (Group Delta 2022).

A vicinity records search identified two sites listed on multiple regulatory databases, a Shell Service Station and a Midway Texaco Service Station, located 0.42 mile and 0.20 mile from the Project Area, respectively.

However, based on remedial actions performed, the medium impacted (soil only), regulatory status, and relative distance from the Project Area, these former releases were not found to represent a REC. Another potential REC was identified during the review of historical aerial photography and topographic maps of the Project Area. The Project Area was historically used for agricultural purposes. There is a potential that agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, were used onsite. The agricultural use included the use of multiple structures and a square‐shaped pond feature. It appears to have been wet in the 1953 and 1961 aerial photographs and dry in the 1967 aerial photograph, suggesting use as a detention pond. The agricultural facility operated prior to the period of stringent regulatory oversight (pre‐1980) and the types of equipment and potential hazardous materials used at the former agricultural facility are unknown.

Based on this information, the former agricultural facility onsite from approximately 1961 to 1978 represents a REC to the Project Area (Group Delta 2022).

The site reconnaissance was performed on April 27, 2022, to observe the present site use and conditions as they relate to the possible presence of potentially hazardous substances and petroleum products. No evidence of RECs was identified during the site reconnaissance (Group Delta 2022).

4.9.2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (IX) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact.

The construction phase of the Proposed Project may include the transport, storage, and short-term use of petroleum-based fuels, lubricants, pesticides, and other similar materials. The transport of hazardous materials by truck is regulated by federal safety standards under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Additionally, the implementation of BMPs stipulating proper storage of hazardous materials and vehicle refueling would be implemented during construction as part of the SWPPP. All transport, handling, use, and disposal of substances such as petroleum products paints, and solvents related to the operation and maintenance of the Proposed Project would comply with all Federal, State, and local laws regulating management and use of hazardous materials. Therefore, the use of such material would not create a significant hazard to the public and impacts would be less than significant.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-46 November 2022
2019-185
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Less than Significant Impact.

Onsite storage and/or use of large quantities of hazardous materials capable of affecting soil and groundwater are not proposed. However, during construction some hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel, would be used. A SWPPP, listing BMPs to prevent construction pollutants and products from violating any water quality standard or waste discharge requirements would be prepared for the Proposed Project. The potential risk associated with accidental discharge during use and storage of equipmentrelated hazardous materials would be low since the handling of such materials would be addressed through the implementation of BMPs. With the implementation of BMPs, the Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material. Impacts would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact.

Alpha Omega School and Online Academy is located approximately 0.25 mile northwest of the Project Area. Single-family residential uses do not typically emit hazardous emissions or handle large amounts of hazardous materials or waste. As described in the responses to questions a) and b) of this section, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in significant hazards to the public from the use of hazardous materials during construction. Impacts would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-47 November 2022
2019-185
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
No Impact.

A search of the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) and EnviroStor online database and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker online database was conducted for the Proposed Project area (DTSC 2019a and 2019b; SWRCB 2019). The searches revealed no known hazardous materials within the Project Area or immediate vicinity. No RECs were identified as a result of the EnviroStor or GeoTracker database reviews (Group Delta 2022). No impact would occur.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project
area?
No Impact.

The nearest airport to the Project Area is the Hemet Ryan Airport located approximately four miles southwest. The Project Area is not located within the Hemet Ryan Airport influence area or compatibility zone (RCALUC 2017). No impact would occur.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact.

The City’s Emergency Operation Plan describes the City’s process for responding to emergencies or disasters. General Plan policies and programs support implementation of the City’s Emergency Operation Plan. The City's project review process includes reviews by the City’s fire and police departments for consideration of emergency access requirements. The Proposed Project’s design would meet City standards for required emergency vehicle access and emergency egress of residents. Established City procedures including plan check, permit issuance, and construction inspection would ensure implementation of the Proposed Project is consistent with the approved design. As such, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to interfere with the City’s Emergency Operation Plan. No impact would occur.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-48 November 2022
2019-185
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Hemet General Plan identifies the Project Area in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (City of Hemet 2012b). The Hemet General Plan includes policies and programs designed to protect people and property from wildland fire hazards. Policies applicable to the Proposed Project include:
• Policy PS-7.3 would require development projects to contribute fees based on their proportional impact and demand for fire services.
• Policy PS-7.4 would require adequate access for emergency vehicles, including adequate street widths and vertical clearance on new streets.
• Policy PS-6.7 would implement brush clearing and other fire prevention programs in areas designated for Open Space and areas subject to wildland fire hazards to reduce the risk of wildland fires.
• Policy PS-6.5 directs the City to evaluate all new development to be located in or adjacent to wildland areas to assess its vulnerability to fire and its potential as a source of fire. • Policy PS-6.8 requires mitigation of existing fire hazards related to urban development or patterns of urban development.

The City's project review process includes reviews by the City’s Fire, Building and Safety, and Planning Departments for consideration of wildfire risk, emergency access requirements, and consistency with General Plan policies. The Proposed Project’s design would meet City standards and the latest building construction codes. Established City procedures including plan check, permit issuance, and construction inspection would ensure implementation of the Proposed Project is consistent with the approved design.

Impacts would be less than significant.

4.9.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-49 November 2022
2019-185

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.10.1 Environmental Setting

4.4.1.1 Regional Hydrology
The City of Hemet’s Planning Area contains river systems, numerous lakes and reservoirs, and natural drainage areas. Major waterways within the planning area include Diamond Valley Lake, the San Jacinto River, San Diego Aqueduct, Hemet Channel, Lake Hemet Main Canal, Salt Creek Flood Control Canal, Bautista Wash, and Casa Loma Canal Aqueduct.

The planning area lies within two distinct water basins defined by the RWQCB: the Santa Ana River Basin and the San Diego Basin. The Santa Ana River Basin drains into the Pacific Ocean in Orange County, while the San Diego Basin drains into the Pacific Ocean in San Diego County. These large watersheds are further divided into smaller sections by internal water drainage areas and groundwater basins.

Santa Ana Region
The portion of the planning area within the Santa Ana Region is located within the San Jacinto River Hydrologic Unit (Santa Ana RWQCB 1995., as cited by City of Hemet 2012a). The unit drains into Lake Elsinore, and includes the San Jacinto Valley hydrologic area, via the Hemet, Gilman Hot Springs, Lakeview, and Winchester subunits.

San Diego Region
The portion of the planning area within the San Diego Region is located within the Santa Margarita Hydrologic Unit, which includes Diamond Valley Lake. The Santa Margarita Hydrologic Unit is drained mostly by the Santa Margarita River, Murrieta Creek, and Temecula River (San Diego RWQCB 1994., as cited by City of Hemet 2012a). Diamond Valley Lake is an important storage reservoir for the California State Water Project. This reservoir is located in the San Jacinto drainage area and holds 800,000 acre-feet or 260 billion gallons of water.

4.4.1.2 San Jacinto River Watershed
The 732-square mile San Jacinto River Watershed is located in Riverside County and drains to the Santa Ana River through Lake Elsinore and Temescal Wash. Due to the large amount of flood storage in Lake Elsinore, flows from the San Jacinto River rarely reach the Santa Ana River, the last occurrence being in 1916 (San Jacinto River Watershed Council 2005., as cited by City of Hemet 2012a). Major tributaries include Bautista Creek, Poppet Creek, Potrero Creek, Perris Valley Drain, and Salt Creek. The mountainous portion of the drainage area lies principally on the southwest slopes of the San Jacinto Mountains, while the valley portion includes primarily the San Jacinto and Perris Valleys.

4.4.1.3 Groundwater Hydrology
The Hemet/San Jacinto Groundwater Management Area (GMA) is managed by the Hemet-San Jacinto Watermaster (Watermaster) based on the Stipulated Judgment entered on April 18, 2013, in Riverside

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-50 November 2022
2019-185
County Superior Court (Case No. RIC 1207274). The Management Area is located in the western portion of Riverside County within the San Jacinto River Watershed and includes the Cities of San Jacinto and Hemet, as well as the unincorporated areas of Winchester, Valle Vista, and Cactus Valley. The GMA encompasses approximately 90 square miles and has been divided into four groundwater management zones. The Watermaster is responsible for estimated water supplies and projected demands for the GMA, evaluating data compiled from the Groundwater Monitoring Programs, and managing the groundwater recharge program and other activities to protect the local groundwater resources (EMWD 2018).

The largest sources of groundwater for the planning area are the Hemet-San Jacinto Basins, which underlie a majority of the planning area with water-bearing strata. The Hemet-San Jacinto Basins consist of the Hemet South, Hemet North, Canyon, and San Jacinto Upper Pressure subbasins. These basins have a potential capacity of approximately 1.3 million acre-feet; however, only 400,000 acre-feet are estimated to be usable. Groundwater storage in all the Hemet-San Jacinto Basins has been reduced about 14,000 AFY due to overdraft for the period from 1958 to 2001. Current estimates of overdraft are approximately 10,000 AFY. Projections of water supply show the need for an additional 15,000 AFY to accommodate future growth. (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2007., as cited by City of Hemet 2012a)

4.4.1.4 Site Hydrology and On-Site Drainage
A Preliminary Infiltration Testing Investigation was prepared for the Proposed Project’s infiltration basin by LGC in October 2019 (Appendix H; LGC 2019). Additionally, Sikand Engineering Associated (Sikand) prepared a Preliminary Drainage Report for the Proposed Project (Appendix I; Sikand 2020). The Project Area is located at the west base of Park Hill. The subject site has been previously graded and filled.

Vegetation growth is present onsite. Currently, the subject site is a vacant lot with several concrete pads, a roadway, and various small structures (LGC 2019).

The subject property consists of all of APN 439-230-005, containing a total of 13-acres. Topography of the Project Area is slightly inclined with sheet drainage appearing to flow from southeast to northwest (Sikand 2020). The existing site elevations vary from approximately 1,637-feet amsl near the northeast corner of the Project Area, to approximately 1,607-feet msl at the northwest corner of the Project Area. Surface water runoff relative to project design is within the purview of the project civil engineer and would be designed to be directed away from all structures and walls (LGC 2019).

No aquatic resources were mapped on the property. An existing catch basin and outlet pipe located at the east boundary along Park Avenue brings offsite runoff from a small tributary area coming from the hill and Park Avenue into the Project Area (Sikand 2020).

4.10.2 Hydrology and Water Quality (X) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-51 November 2022
2019-185
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact.

During construction of the Proposed Project water quality impacts could occur without proper controls.

Soils loosened during grading, as well as spills of fluids or fuels from vehicles and equipment, if mobilized or transported offsite in overland flow, have the potential to degrade water quality. Because the area of disturbance affected by construction of the Proposed Project exceeds one acre, the Proposed Project would be subject to the requirements of the statewide NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (General Permit; Order 2009-0009-DWQ).

Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation. During construction, to comply with the General Permit the applicant would be required to implement a SWPPP, which would include BMPs to prevent construction pollutants and products from violating any water quality standards or any waste discharge requirements. Impacts to surface or ground water quality during construction would be less than significant.

During operations the Proposed Project would implement the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by Sikand (Appendix K; Sikand 2021). The WQMP details the Proposed Project’s stormwater management system to address post-construction runoff quality and quantity. The Proposed Project’s stormwater management system includes a water quality basin along the western entrance to the Project Area east of Girard Street. Stormwater runoff from the proposed development would be directed to the proposed water quality basin (Sikand 2021). Impacts to surface or ground water quality during project operation would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project would include both pervious (water quality basin, drainage easement, and landscape areas) and impervious (hardscapes, building footprints) surfaces. The Proposed Project would not involve the withdrawal of groundwater. Water supply for the residential uses would be provided by the LHMWD. The Proposed Project’s stormwater management system includes the use of a water quality basin, which would allow groundwater recharge. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to substantially affect groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-52 November 2022
2019-185
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner that would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
offsite;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact.
i) The Proposed Project would require grading of the Project Area which would result in localized changes in discharge patterns, which could result in erosion and/or siltation. Erosion and/or siltation during construction would be minimized by implementation of BMPs included in the Proposed Project’s SWPPP. Furthermore, the Proposed Project grading plan and stormwater management system has been designed by a registered civil engineer to meet City development standards and safely collect and convey runoff to the proposed water quality basin. Impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Significant Impact.
ii) The Proposed Project’s WQMP details the Project’s strategy to control the velocity and volume of surface runoff originating from the Project Area. The Proposed Project’s WQMP includes the use of a water quality basin, which would accept runoff from the proposed development. The Proposed Project’s water quality basin is designed to allow stormwater to infiltrate into the ground reducing the velocity and volume of stormwater that is discharged from the Project Area. As such, the potential for flooding onsite or offsite is reduced. Impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Significant Impact.
iii) The Proposed Project’s stormwater management system was designed by a registered civil engineer to ensure that the system’s components are sized to treat the runoff volumes that

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-53 November 2022
2019-185
are anticipated for the post-development condition. The system has also been designed to treat polluted runoff that is typical for residential development. Impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Significant Impact.
iv) The proposed grading plan and stormwater management system are designed to prevent flooding conditions. Runoff from the proposed residential lots would be conveyed to the water quality basin. Furthermore, the drainage feature located along the eastern border of the Project Area is protected in place within a drainage easement. Impacts would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact.

The Project Area is not located within a known flood hazard (FEMA 2017). Additionally, the Project Area is located approximately 45 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean and approximately 5 miles northwest of Diamond Valley Lake. Due to the distance to the Pacific Ocean and Diamond Valley Lake, the Project Area would not be subject to inundation from seiches or tsunamis. The Project Area is also located outside of the inundation area for Little Lake (City of Hemet 2012a). No impact would occur.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
No Impact.

The Proposed Project would comply with the NPDES stormwater permit for construction activity (Order 98-08 DWQ), and as such would prepare a SWPPP. Additionally, construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not interfere with any groundwater management or recharge plan. No impact would occur.

4.10.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-54 November 2022
2019-185

4.11 Land Use and Planning

4.11.1 Land Use and Planning (XI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact.

The Project Area is bound by single family residential development to the north, south, and west and Park Hill to the east. Development of the Project Area with residential land uses would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and development in the area and would not divide an established community. No impact would occur.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Project Area has a General Plan land use designation of LMDR and a zoning designation of LowDensity Multiple Family Residential (R-2). The Proposed Project would include a zone change of the Project Area to Single Family Residential (R-1-6). Although the Proposed Project would require a zone change, the proposed development of single-family residential lots is a compatible land use. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would comply with the City of Hemet’s zone change procedures, as required by the City’s Municipal Code Section 90-41. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.11.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.12 Mineral Resources

4.12.1 Mineral Resources (XII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-55 November 2022
2019-185
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
No Impact.

According to the California Geological Survey (CGS) the Project Area is not located within a Mineral Resources Zone (MRZ). The CGS classifies the Project Area as Urban Areas (CGS 2008). Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. No impact would occur.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?
No Impact.

As stated in the response to question a) above, the CGS does not identify mineral resources within the Project Area. Furthermore, the City of Hemet General Plan also does not identify mineral resources in the Project Area (City of Hemet 2012b). No impact would occur.

4.12.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.13 Noise

4.13.1 Environmental Setting

4.13.1.1 Noise Fundamentals
Noise is generally defined as sound that is loud, disagreeable, or unexpected. The selection of a proper noise descriptor for a specific source is dependent on the spatial and temporal distribution, duration, and fluctuation of the noise. The noise descriptors most often encountered when dealing with traffic, community, and environmental noise include the average hourly noise level (in Leq) and the average daily noise levels/community noise equivalent level (in Ldn/CNEL). The Leq is a measure of ambient noise, while the Ldn and CNEL are measures of community noise. Each is applicable to this analysis and defined as follows:
• Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-56 November 2022
2019-185
deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night. • Day-Night Average (Ldn) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10-decibel (dB) weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the nighttime (notated as dBA). The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA Ldn.
• Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 5-dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a 10-dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively.

Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources, such as automobiles, trucks and airplanes, and stationary sources, such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations.

Sound spreads (propagates) uniformly outward in a spherical pattern, and the sound level decreases (attenuates) at a rate of approximately 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a stationary or point source. Sound from a line source, such as a highway, propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of approximately 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source, such as a roadway, depending on ground surface characteristics (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2011). No excess attenuation is assumed for hard surfaces like a parking lot or a body of water. Soft surfaces, such as soft dirt or grass, can absorb sound, so an excess ground-attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. For line sources, an overall attenuation rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance is assumed (FHWA 2011).

Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of detached buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA (FHWA 2008), while a solid wall or berm generally reduces noise levels by 10 to 20 dBA (FHWA 2011). However, noise barriers or enclosures specifically designed to reduce site-specific construction noise can provide a sound reduction 35 dBA or greater (Western Electro-Acoustic Laboratory, Inc. [WEAL] 2000). To achieve the most potent noise-reducing effect, a noise enclosure/barrier must physically fit in the available space, must completely break the line of sight between the noise source and the receptors, must be free of degrading holes or gaps, and must not be flanked by nearby reflective surfaces. Noise barriers must be sizable enough to cover the entire noise source and extend length-wise and vertically as far as feasibly possible to be most effective. The limiting factor for a noise barrier is not the component of noise transmitted through the material, but rather the amount of noise flanking around and over the barrier. In general, barriers contribute to decreasing noise levels only when the structure breaks the line of sight between the source and the receiver.

The manner in which older homes in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-57 November 2022
2019-185

4.13.1.2 Sensitive Noise Receptors
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Additional land uses such as parks, historic sites, cemeteries, and recreation areas are considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels. Schools, churches, hotels, libraries, and other places where low interior noise levels are essential are also considered noise-sensitive land uses.

The Project Area is located in a developing, residential area, the nearest noise-sensitive land use receptors are single-family residences located approximately 25 feet west of the Project Area boundary.

4.13.1.3 Existing Ambient Noise Environment
Hemet is impacted by various noise sources. It is subject to typical urban noise such as noise generated by traffic, heavy machinery, and day-to-day outdoor activities. Mobile sources of noise, especially cars and trucks, are the most common source of noise in the community. Other sources of noise are the various land users (i.e., residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational and parks activities) through the City generate stationary-source noise.

In order to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area, ECORP conducted three short-term noise measurements on September 24, 2019. The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the Project Area (see Appendix L for noise measurement locations). The 10-minute measurements were taken between 10:36 a.m. and 11:24 a.m.

Short-term (Leq) measurements are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The average noise levels and sources of noise measured at each location are listed in in Table 4.13-1.

Table 4.13-1. Existing (Baseline) Noise Measurements
Site
Number Location Leq dBA LmindBA
Lmax
dBA Time
1 Adjacent to Park Avenue and south of
Cajon Street 68.3 45.9 78.9 11:14 a.m. – 11:24 a.m.
2 On East Menlo Avenue and east of
Chino Lane 68.5 46.2 79.7 10:58 a.m. – 11:08 a.m.
3 Adjacent to Project Area on North Girard
Street 56.2 43.2 72.9 10:36 a.m. – 10:46 a.m.

Source: Measurements were taken by ECORP Consulting, Inc. with a Larson Davis SoundExpert LxT precision sound level meter, which satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for general environmental noise measurement instrumentation. Prior to the measurements, the SoundExpert LxT sound level meter was calibrated according to manufacturer specifications with a Larson Davis CAL200 Class I Calibrator. See Appendix L for noise measurement outputs.

Notes: Existing baseline noise measurements are presented in Leq (Equivalent Noise Level). The Leq is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time (in this case 10 minutes). Lmin and Lmax represent the minimum and maximum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period, respectively.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-58 November 2022
2019-185
As shown, the ambient recorded noise levels range from 56.2 to 68.5 dBA around the Project Area. The noise most commonly in the project vicinity is produced by automotive vehicles (cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles). Traffic moving along streets produces a sound level that remains relatively constant and is part of the project area’s minimum ambient noise level. Vehicular noise varies with the volume, speed and type of traffic. Slower traffic produces less noise than fast moving traffic. Trucks typically generate more noise than cars. Infrequent or intermittent noise also is associated with vehicles, including sirens, vehicle alarms, slamming of doors, trains, garbage and construction vehicle activity and honking of horns. These noises add to urban noise and are regulated by a variety of agencies.

4.13.1.4 Existing Roadway Noise Levels
Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway segments in the project vicinity. This task was accomplished using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) (Appendix L) and traffic volumes from the Proposed Project’s Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads (Appendix M; Urban Crossroads 2019). The model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (energy rates) used in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caltrans. The Caltrans data shows that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. The average daily noise levels along these roadway segments are presented in Table 4.13-2.

Table 4.13-2. Existing (Baseline) Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment Surrounding Uses CNEL at 100 feet from
Centerline of Roadway
East Menlo Avenue
Between South Jacinto Avenue and
North Girard Street Residential 53.6
Between North Girard Street and
Deardorff Drive Residential 53.4
West of South Jacinto Avenue Residential & Commercial 53.4 East of Deardorff Drive Residential 54.0
South San Jacinto Avenue (Highway 79)
North of East Menlo Avenue Residential & Commercial 58.5 South of East Menlo Avenue Residential & Commercial 57.9 North Girard Street
North of East Menlo Avenue Residential 43.6
South of East Menlo Avenue Residential 48.1

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-59 November 2022
2019-185
Table 4.13-2. Existing (Baseline) Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment Surrounding Uses CNEL at 100 feet from
Centerline of Roadway
Deardorff Drive
South of East Menlo Avenue Residential 37.0
Source: Traffic noise levels were calculated by ECORP Consulting, Inc. using the FHWA roadway noise prediction model in conjunction with the trip generation rate identified by Urban Crossroads 2019. Refer to Appendix M for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.

As shown, the existing traffic-generated noise level on project-vicinity roadways currently ranges from

37.0 to 58.5 dBA CNEL. As previously described, CNEL is 24-hour average noise level with a 5 dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a 10 dBA weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively.

It should be noted that the modeled noise levels depicted in Table 4.13-2 may differ from measured levels in Table 4.13-1 because the measurements represent noise levels at different locations around the Project Area and are also reported in different noise metrics (e.g., noise measurements are the Leq values and traffic noise levels are reported in CNEL).

4.13.1.5 Vibration Fundamentals
Ground vibration can be measured several ways to quantify the amplitude of vibration produced. This can be through peak particle velocity or root mean square velocity. These velocity measurements measure maximum particle at one point or the average of the squared amplitude of the signal, respectively.

Vibration impacts on people can be described as the level of annoyance and can vary depending on an individual’s sensitivity. Generally, low-level vibrations may cause window rattling but do not pose any threats to the integrity of buildings or structures.

4.13.2 Noise (XIII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-60 November 2022
2019-185
Less than Significant Impact.

Land Use Noise Compatibility
The City of Hemet General Plan Public Safety Element provides a Land Use Compatibility Standards which are used for new development. The standards, which use the CNEL noise descriptor, apply to land use exposed to noise levels generated by transportation-related sources. The Land Use Compatibility Table, presented below as Table 4.13-3, provides a tool to gauge the compatibility of new land uses relative to existing noise levels. This table identifies normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, and clearly unacceptable noise levels generated by transportation-related sources for various land uses.

Table 4.13-3. Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure (CNEL)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential 50 – 60 55 – 65 65 – 75 75 – 85
Transient Lodging: Hotels, Motels 50 – 65 60 – 70 70 – 75 75 – 85 Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes 50 – 70 60 – 70 70 – 80 80 – 85
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheaters NA 50 – 70 65 – 85 NA
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator
Sports NA 50 – 75 70 – 85 NA
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50 – 70 NA 67.5 –75 72.5 – 85 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water
Recreation, Cemeteries 50 – 75 NA 70 – 80 80 – 85
Office Buildings, Businesses Commercial
And Professional 50 – 70 67.5 – 77.5 N/A 75 – 85
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities,
Agriculture 50 – 75 70 – 80 N/A 75 – 85
Source: City of Hemet 2012b
Notes: NA: Not Applicable; CNEL: Community Noise Equivalent Level Normally Acceptable – Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

Conditionally Acceptable – New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Outdoor environment will seem noisy.

Normally Unacceptable – New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Outdoor areas must be shielded.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-61 November 2022
2019-185
Table 4.13-3. Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure (CNEL)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Clearly Unacceptable – New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Construction costs to make the indoor environment acceptable would be prohibitive and the outdoor environment would not be usable.

As previously stated, the Project Area is designated in the City of Hemet General Plan LMDR. In the case that the noise levels identified in the Project Area fall within levels considered normally acceptable, the Proposed Project is considered compatible with the existing noise environment. Per the Land Use Compatibility Table, an acceptable existing noise level for locating residential is 50 to 60 dBA CNEL. Per the traffic noise levels calculated by ECORP using the FHWA roadway noise prediction model in conjunction with the trip generation rate identified by Urban Crossroads, which are also measured in CNEL, transportation-related noise adjacent to the Project Area ranges from 43.6 dBA to 53.4 dBA CNEL.

As these dBA CNEL noise levels fall within the normally acceptable noise level for residential land use, the Project Area is considered an appropriate noise environment to locate the proposed land use.

Construction Noise
Construction noise associated with the Proposed Project would be temporary and would vary depending on the nature of the activities being performed. Noise generated would primarily be associated with the operation of off-road equipment for onsite construction activities as well as construction vehicle traffic on area roadways. Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., building construction, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts).

Chapter 30 Article II of the City of Hemet Municipal Code (City of Hemet 2019b) limits the time that construction can take place to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., on weekdays, during the months of June through September and between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., on weekdays, during the months of October through May. Construction is only permitted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and all construction on Sunday is prohibited. The Municipal Code does not promulgate numeric thresholds pertaining to the noise associated with construction. This is because construction noise is temporary, short term, intermittent in nature, and would cease on completion of a project. Furthermore, the City of Hemet is a developing urban community and construction noise is generally accepted by residents as a reality within the urban environment. The noise levels for various types of construction equipment that could be required during construction of the Proposed Project are provided in Table 4.13-4.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-62 November 2022
2019-185
Table 4.13-4. Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment Type of Equipment Maximum Noise (Lmax) at 50
Feet (dBA)
Maximum 8-Hour Noise
(Leq) at 50 Feet (dBA)
Crane 80.6 72.6
Dozer 81.7 77.7
Excavator 80.7 76.7
Generator 80.6 77.6
Grader 85.0 81.0
Paver 77.2 74.2
Roller 80.0 73.0
Tractor 84.0 80.0
Dump Truck 76.5 72.5
Concrete Pump Truck 81.4 74.4
Welder 74.0 70.0
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2008.

As shown, the loudest source noise at a typical construction site is associated with graders, which can emit sound at levels around 85 dBA at 50 feet. Thus, nearby noise-sensitive land uses located at 25 feet would experience noise levels in excess of what is presented in Table 4.13-4. As previously mentioned, Hemet limits the time that construction can take place but does not promulgate numeric thresholds pertaining to the noise associated with construction. Therefore, noise associated with construction activities, as long as conducted within the permitted hours, would not exceed City noise standards.

A less than significant impact would occur. No mitigation is necessary.

Operational Noise
Project Operations- On Site Noise Sources
Noise-sensitive land uses are locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Residences, schools, hospitals, guest lodging, libraries, and some passive recreation areas would each be considered noise-sensitive and may warrant unique measures for protection from intruding noise. The nearest noise-sensitive land uses consist of singlefamily residences approximately 25 feet west of the Project Area.

The main operational noise source associated with the Proposed Project would be that of operational stationary sources. Potential stationary noise sources related to long-term operation of future development of the Project Area would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment) typically generates noise levels less than 40 dBA at 50 feet, which is less than City daytime and nighttime thresholds for residential uses. The Proposed Project places residential uses adjacent to other residential uses. The most basic planning strategy to minimize adverse impacts on new land uses due to noise is to avoid designating certain land uses at locations within the City that would negative affect noise sensitive land uses. The Project Area and adjacent surrounding land uses have a General Plan designation of LMDR. The primary purpose of lands

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-63 November 2022
2019-185
designated LMDR is to provide traditional residential subdivisions, planned residential developments, mobile homes subdivision and parks, and low-density senior housing. The Proposed Project is consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the project vicinity, and as previously described, the Proposed Project is considered compatible with the existing noise environment. Operation of the Proposed Project would not result in a significant noise-related impact associated with onsite sources.

A less than significant impact would occur. No mitigation is necessary.

Project Operations- Offsite Traffic Noise
Future traffic noise levels throughout the project vicinity were modeled based on the traffic volumes identified by the Proposed Project’s Traffic Impact Analysis (Urban Crossroads 2019) coupled with the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) (Appendix C). Table 4.13-5 shows the calculated offsite roadway noise levels under existing traffic conditions and full buildout of the Proposed Project, as well as the increase in noise levels between existing traffic levels and Proposed Project buildout. The calculated noise levels at affected land uses as a result of the Proposed Project are compared to Table 6.4 in Chapter 6.10.4 of the City’s General Plan, which presents the maximum interior and exterior noise levels for new development. For residential developments this allows for an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL and an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL.

Table 4.13-5. Existing Plus Project Conditions Predicted Traffic Noise Levels Roadway
Segment
Surrounding
Uses
CNEL at 100 feet from
Centerline of Roadway Increase
from
Ambient
Noise
Standard
(dBA
CNEL)
Exceed
Standard /
Significant
Impact?
Existing
Conditions
Existing +
Project
Conditions
East Menlo Avenue
Between South
Jacinto Avenue and
North Girard Street
Residential 53.6 53.8 0.2 65 No
Between North
Girard Street and
Deardorff Drive
Residential 53.4 53.6 0.2 65 No
West of South
Jacinto Avenue
Residential &
Commercial 53.4 53.4 0.0 65 No
East of Deardorff
Drive Residential 54.0 54.0 0.0 65 No
South San Jacinto Avenue (Highway 79)
North of East
Menlo Avenue
Residential &
Commercial 58.5 58.9 0.4 65 No

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-64 November 2022
2019-185
Table 4.13-5. Existing Plus Project Conditions Predicted Traffic Noise Levels Roadway
Segment
Surrounding
Uses
CNEL at 100 feet from
Centerline of Roadway Increase
from
Ambient
Noise
Standard
(dBA
CNEL)
Exceed
Standard /
Significant
Impact?
Existing
Conditions
Existing +
Project
Conditions
South of East
Menlo Avenue
Residential &
Commercial 57.9 57.9 0.0 65 No
North Girard Street
North of East
Menlo Avenue Residential 43.6 47.4 3.8 65 No
South of East
Menlo Avenue Residential 48.1 48.3 0.2 65 No
Deardorff Drive
South of East
Menlo Avenue Residential 37.0 37.3 0.3 65 No
Source: Traffic noise levels were calculated by ECORP using the FHWA roadway noise prediction model in conjunction with the trip generation rate identified by Urban Crossroads 2019. Refer to Attachment M for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results.

As shown in Table 4.13-5, predicted increases in traffic noise levels associated with the Proposed Project would be less than the significance threshold. A less than significant impact would occur.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
No Impact.

Construction activities have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration and noise levels, depending on the specific construction equipment used and operations involved. The ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized in Table 4.13-6.

Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. The effects of ground vibration may be imperceptible at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, and slight damage to nearby structures at the highest levels.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-65 November 2022
2019-185
Table 4.13-6. Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment Type Peak Particle Velocity at 25 Feet (inches per second)
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Rock Breaker 0.082
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer/Tractor 0.003
Source: FTA 2018; Caltrans 2013
The City does not regulate vibration associated with construction. However, a discussion of construction vibration is included for full disclosure purposes. For comparison purposes, the Caltrans’s (2013) recommended standard of 0.2 inches per second peak particle velocity with respect to the prevention of structural damage for older residential buildings is used as a threshold. This is also the level at which vibrations may begin to annoy people in buildings.

It is acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project Area and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest structure. The nearest structures of concern to the construction site are single family residences located approximately 25 feet away. Based on the vibration levels presented in Table 4.13-6, ground vibration generated by heavy-duty equipment would not be anticipated to exceed approximately 0.089 inches per second peak particle velocity at 25 feet. Thus, the structures located at 25 feet would not be negatively affected. Because predicted vibration levels at the nearest structures would not exceed recommended criteria, no impact would occur.

Project operations would not include the use of any stationary equipment that would result in excessive groundborne vibration levels. For this reason, no impact would occur.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
No Impact.

The Project Area is located approximately four miles southwest of the Hemet-Ryan Airport.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would not affect airport operations nor result in increased exposure of noise-sensitive receptors to aircraft noise. For this reason, no impact would occur.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-66 November 2022
2019-185

4.13.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.14 Population and Housing

4.14.1 Population and Housing (XIV) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project would result in the development of 51 residential lots, which would induce population growth. However, the Proposed Project is consistent with the LMDR land use designation established under the City’s 2030 General Plan (City of Hemet 2012b). Because the Proposed Project is consistent with the 2030 General Plan, the Proposed Project would not result in new impacts beyond those previously evaluated in the 2030 General Plan EIR. Impacts would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of people or
existing housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact.

There are no existing residential uses within the Project Area. No impact would occur.

4.14.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-67 November 2022
2019-185

4.15 Public Services

4.15.1 Environmental Setting

4.15.1.1 Fire Services
The Hemet Fire Department is responsible for fire suppression activities within the City. In the portions of the Hemet planning area which lie beyond the city limits, Riverside County contracts with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) for fire suppression. The Hemet Fire Department operates four fire stations. In 2009, the Hemet Fire Department had a staff of about 49 personnel, 45 of which were fire suppression personnel (City of Hemet 2012a). The closest fire station to the Project Area is Fire Station No. 1 located approximately one mile to the southwest.

4.15.1.2 Police Services
The Hemet Police Department operates a headquarters and two community sub stations. These substations are staffed exclusively by volunteers and are generally open weekdays and sometimes during special events (City of Hemet 2012a). The police headquarters are approximately one mile southwest of the Project Area.

4.15.1.3 Schools
Most of Hemet lies within the Hemet Unified School District (HUSD), although some of the northern portions of the city are served by the San Jacinto Unified School District (SJUSD). The Project Area falls within the jurisdiction of the SJUSD. SJUSD enrolls approximately 9,000 students from kindergarten through high school. SJUSD operates seven elementary schools, two middle schools, and two high schools (one comprehensive and one continuation) (City of Hemet 2012a).

4.15.1.4 Parks
Park and recreation facilities in the City of Hemet are maintained by four agencies: the City of Hemet, Valley- Wide Parks and Recreation District (Valley-Wide District), HUSD, and the Riverside County Department of Parks and Recreation. The City of Hemet includes 17 parks and recreational facilities, ranging in size from the 0.25-acre Rodeghier Green to 483 acres of open space in Simpson Park. These parks vary from purely passive recreational use to heavily programmed use. There are 700.25 acres of parkland in the City as of 2010, which represents 9.2 acres per 1,000 residents based on the estimated 2010 population of 75,820 (City of Hemet 2012a).

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-68 November 2022
2019-185

4.15.2 Public Services (XV) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:

Fire Protection?
Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other Public Facilities?
Less than Significant Impact.

Fire Protection
The Proposed Project would develop 51 residential lots on a currently undeveloped parcel which would add to the demand on fire protection services. However, the Proposed Project would be required to implement all applicable California Fire Code Standards. The Proposed Project’s design and construction plans would be reviewed by City of Hemet’s Fire and Building & Safety Departments to ensure fire codes are met and that adequate fire protection services would be available to meet the Proposed Project’s needs. The Applicant would pay the City of Hemet’s Development Impact Fees. The City imposes development impact fees on development projects to lessen the impact to public services, infrastructure and facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Significant Impact.

Police Services
As previously stated, the Proposed Project would result in the development of 51 residential lots on a currently undeveloped parcel. This development would result in an increase in demand for police protection services. The Applicant would pay the City of Hemet’s Development Impact Fees, which would cover the Proposed Project’s fair share on public services. Impacts would be less than significant.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-69 November 2022
2019-185
Less than Significant Impact.

Schools
The Applicant would pay SJUSD development impact fees to address impacts on schools as a result of the Proposed Project. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Significant Impact.

Parks
The Applicant would pay the City of Hemet’s Development Impact Fees, which would cover the Proposed Project’s fair share on public services including parks. Impacts would be less than significant.

Less than Significant Impact.

Other Public Facilities
The Proposed Project is not anticipated to induce unplanned population growth; therefore, it would not create additional demand for other public facilities, such as libraries. The Applicant would comply with the City of Hemet’s Development Impact Fees, which would lessen the Proposed Project’s impacts on public services, infrastructure, and facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.15.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.16 Recreation

4.16.1 Recreation (XVI) Materials Checklist
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project would develop 51 residential lots on a currently undeveloped parcel which could potentially increase the use of existing recreational facilities. The Applicant would comply with the City of Hemet’s Development Impact Fees, which would lessen the Proposed Project’s impacts on public services, infrastructure, and facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-70 November 2022
2019-185
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project does not include recreational facilities. The Proposed Project would develop 51 residential lots on a currently undeveloped parcel. Due to the proposed scale of development, it is not anticipated that the Proposed Project would require the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities. The Applicant would comply with the City of Hemet’s Development Impact Fees, which would lessen the Proposed Project’s impacts on public services, infrastructure, and facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.16.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

4.17 Transportation
A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the Proposed Project by Urban Crossroads (Appendix M; Urban Crossroads 2019). A subsequent Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis was prepared for the Proposed Project by Translutions, Inc. (Appendix N; Urban Crossroads 2022).

4.17.1 Environmental Setting
The Proposed Project study area was defined in coordination with the City of Hemet. Consistent with County of Riverside traffic study guidelines, the study area includes any intersection of Collector or higher classification street, with Collector or higher classification streets, at which the Proposed Project would add 50 or more peak hour trips.

4.17.1.1 Study Intersections
The Traffic Impact Analysis’ study area includes four intersections adjacent or near the Project Area, including:

1. San Jacinto Street at East Menlo Avenue

2. Girard Street at A Street

3. Girard Street at East Menlo Avenue

4. Deardorff Drive - B Street at East Menlo Avenue

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-71 November 2022
2019-185
A and B Streets are the future proposed streets within the Project Area.

The existing level of service (LOS) was calculated using traffic count data collected in October 2019. As depicted in Table 4.17-1, none of the existing study area intersections are currently operating at an unacceptable LOS during the peak hours. The City of Hemet has established LOS D as the lowest acceptable LOS for peak‐hour intersection movements and LOS C as the lowest acceptable LOS for roadway segment operations
Table 4.17-1. Intersection Analysis for Existing (2019) Conditions ID Intersection Location
Delay (secs.) Level of Service

AM PM AM PM
1 San Jacinto Avenue/East Menlo Avenue 15.4 15.2 B B
2 Girard Street at A Street Intersection does not exist 3 Girard Street at East Menlo Avenue 17.5 19.6 C C
4 Deardorff Drive - B Street at East Menlo Avenue 12.6 13.3 B B Source: Urban Crossroads 2019

4.17.1.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Currently there are no bicycle facilities adjacent to the Project Area. However, the City of Hemet’s General Plan proposes to accommodate Class 2 (on-road) two-way striped bike lanes on East Menlo Avenue and Park Avenue. Pedestrian facilities are currently provided along the south side of East Menlo Avenue from east of Deardorff Drive to the western study area boundary (Urban Crossroads 2019).

4.17.1.3 Transit Service
The Project Area is currently served by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) with bus services along San Jacinto Street and East Menlo Avenue west of San Jacinto Street. RTA Routes 32, 42, 74, 79 appear to be existing transit routes that could potentially serve the Project Area. Transit service is reviewed and updated by RTA periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate (Urban Crossroads 2019).

4.17.1.4 Trip Generation and VMT Screening
The City of Hemet has guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and are included in the City of Hemet Draft TIA Guidelines (May 2021). These guidelines include thresholds, screening criteria, and VMT reduction measures. The VMT screening analysis has been developed in consultation with City staff and is consistent with the City’s draft guidelines.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-72 November 2022
2019-185

4.17.2 Transportation (XVII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
Less than Significant Impact.

Construction Impacts
The Proposed Project would generate short-term construction-related vehicle trips. However, traffic generated during construction of the Proposed Project would be temporary and would not conflict with the City’s Transportation Element or Circulation Element. The Project would not impede the implementation of City programs supporting walking, bicycling, and use of public transportation. Impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts
Roadway Facilities
The following General Plan policies were applied to study area intersections to identify General Plan consistency through a comparison of Existing and Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project (EAP) traffic conditions:
• If an intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable level of service (i.e., LOS D or better) under existing traffic conditions and the addition of Project traffic is expected to cause the intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service (i.e., LOS E or F). • If an intersection is projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F under Existing Conditions, with the addition of Project traffic.

Analysis
Intersections
Potential impacts to traffic and circulation have been evaluated for each of the following conditions:
• Existing Conditions
• Existing plus Project (E+P) Conditions
• Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Conditions (EAP) • Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative Conditions (EAPC)

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-73 November 2022
2019-185
Trips generated by the Proposed Project have been estimated based on trip generation rates collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate a net total of approximately 481 trip‐ends per day with 38 AM peak hour trips and 51 PM peak hour trips. All study area intersections were evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition analysis methodology (Urban Crossroads 2019).

Existing Conditions
For Existing traffic conditions, none of the study area intersections are currently operating at an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or worse) during either of the peak hours (please see Table 4.17-1).

E+P Conditions
This scenario includes existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by the Proposed Project. Results are shown on Table 4.17-2.

Table 4.17-2. Intersection Analysis For Existing Plus Project Conditions ID Intersection Location Traffic
Control1
Delay (secs.) Level of Service

AM PM AM PM
1 San Jacinto Avenue/East Menlo Avenue TS 15.5 16.4 B B 2 Girard Street at A Street CSS 8.9 9.0 A A
3 Girard Street at East Menlo Avenue CSS 18.5 21.4 C C
4 Deardorff Drive - B Street at East Menlo Avenue CSS 13.8 15.0 B B Source: Urban Crossroads 2019
Notes: 1 = TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop The intersection analysis results indicate that the addition of Proposed Project traffic is not anticipated to result in any LOS deficiencies.

Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Conditions (EAP) This scenario includes existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 4.04 percent and traffic generated by the Proposed Project. The results of this analysis are shown on Table 4.17-3.

Table 4.17-3. Intersection Analysis For Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Conditions ID Intersection Location Traffic
Control1
Delay (secs.) Level of Service

AM PM AM PM
1 San Jacinto Avenue/East Menlo Avenue TS 15.7 16.7 B B 2 Girard Street at A Street CSS 8.9 9.0 A A
3 Girard Street at East Menlo Avenue CSS 19.7 23.2 C C
4 Deardorff Drive - B Street at East Menlo Avenue CSS 14.2 15.4 B C

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-74 November 2022
2019-185
Table 4.17-3. Intersection Analysis For Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Conditions ID Intersection Location Traffic
Control1
Delay (secs.) Level of Service

AM PM AM PM
Source: Urban Crossroads 2019
Notes: 1 = TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop None of the study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or worse) during one or more peak hours under existing plus ambient growth plus Project conditions.

Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative Conditions (EAPC) This scenario includes existing traffic volumes plus an ambient growth factor of 4.04 percent, traffic from pending and approved, but not yet constructed, known development projects in the area, and traffic generated by the Proposed Project. Results of this analysis are shown on Table 4.17-4.

Table 4.17-4. Intersection Analysis For Existing Plus Ambient Plus Project Plus Cumulative Conditions
ID Intersection Location Traffic
Control1
Delay (secs.) Level of Service

AM PM AM PM
1 San Jacinto Avenue/East Menlo Avenue TS 16.1 17.7 B B 2 Girard Street at A Street CSS 9.0 9.0 A A
3 Girard Street at East Menlo Avenue CSS 23.6 29.9 C D
4 Deardorff Drive - B Street at East Menlo Avenue CSS 15.1 16.7 C C Source: Urban Crossroads 2019
Notes: 1 = TS = Traffic Signal; CSS = Cross‐street Stop The intersection analysis results indicate that no LOS deficiencies are anticipated for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project Plus Cumulative Conditions (EAPC) conditions.

Summary
The addition of Proposed Project traffic to existing, existing plus ambient growth, and existing plus ambient growth plus cumulative conditions would not result in any of the study intersections to operate at an unacceptable LOS level (LOS E or worse). As such, the Proposed Project is anticipated to be consistent with the City of Hemet General Plan Circulation Element. Furthermore, the Applicant would contribute to the City of Hemet Development Impact Fees Program and the Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Program. Payment of these fees is anticipated to address the Proposed Project’s share of regional and City improvements. These fees are collected as part of a funding mechanism aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected vehicle trip increases. Impacts would be less than significant.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-75 November 2022
2019-185
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
As part of the development, the Proposed Project would construct improvements on adjacent roadways.

Improvements would include half-section width road improvements along the Project Area’s frontage on Girard, Menlo Avenue, and Park Avenue. These improvements would include constructing curb and gutter and sidewalks on adjacent frontage roads. Improvements would also include a bike lane on the southbound of Park Avenue. A beneficial impact to bicycle and pedestrian facilities would occur.

Transit Service
Transit service is reviewed and updated by RTA periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate (Urban Crossroads 2019). Impacts would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant Impact.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) details the use of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to assess the significance of transportation impacts. As detailed in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (c), a lead agency may elect to be governed by the provisions of this section immediately. Beginning on July 1, 2020, the provisions of this section shall apply statewide. As of the preparation of this document (November 2022), draft VMT analysis thresholds of significance have been adopted by the City of Hemet and the analysis below follows the those guidelines (City of Hemet, May 2021).

The Project VMT Screening Analysis follows screening criteria provided in the City’s guidelines to determine if this Project can be screened out of a VMT analysis under the presumption that it will result in a less than significant transportation impact. The conditions of land developments to be screened out may be the size, location, proximity to transit, or trip-making potential. Residential and office projects located within a low VMT-generating area are presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Based on the Western Riverside Council of Governments VMT Tool available online, the Project is located within a low VMT-generating transportation analysis zone. Because the Project is located within a low-VMT generating area, the Project can be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT based on this screening criteria.

Trip generation calculations were performed in 2022 as part of the analyses prepared by Translutions, Inc.

Trip generation for the Project is based on rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition). Trip generation rates for Land Use 210 - "Single-Family Detached Housing". The Project is forecast to generate 36 a.m. peak hour trips, 48 p.m. peak hour trips, and 481 daily trips. The VMT guidelines include several land uses that can be presumed to have a less than

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-76 November 2022
2019-185
significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary as their uses are local servicing in nature.

The uses include project that generate less than 500 net new daily vehicle trips. For residential uses, this generally corresponds to 52 single-family housing units. The Project includes 51 single family housing units and will generate less than 500 net new daily vehicle trips (Urban Crossroads 2022). Therefore, the Project is presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT based on this screening criteria.

Based on a review of applicable VMT screening thresholds, the Project meets the screening criteria for a small project and a project in a low VMT-generating area, and would result in a less than significant VMT impact. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
No Impact.

The Proposed Project would construct two new T intersections into the development at Girard Street and East Menlo Avenue. These improvements would be designed by a registered civil engineer to meet City of Hemet development standards. The Proposed Project’s design and construction plans would be reviewed by City of Hemet’s Engineering Departments to ensure all design features meet the City’s development standards. No impact would occur.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact.

The Proposed Project has been designed to meet City development standards. Furthermore, the Proposed Project plans would be submitted to the City for plan check and approval. The City’s fire and police departments will review project plans to ensure adequate emergency access is provided. No impact would occur.

4.17.3 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-77 November 2022
2019-185

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

4.18.1 Environmental Setting
Ethnographic accounts of Native Americans indicate that the Project Area lies predominantly within the original territory of the Serrano and Cahuilla (ECORP 2019c).

4.4.1.1 Ethnographic Setting
Serrano
The Serrano occupied an area in and around the San Bernardino Mountains and northward into the Mojave Desert. Their territory also extended west along the north slope of the San Gabriel Mountains, east as far as Twentynine Palms, north into the Victorville and Lucerne Valley areas, and south to the Yucaipa Valley and San Jacinto Valley (Cultural Systems Research 2005). The Serrano speakers in the Mojave Desert who lived along the Mojave River were known as Vanyume. Serrano is a language within the Takic family of the Uto-Aztecan language stock (ECORP 2019c).

Settlement locations were determined by water availability, and most Serranos lived in villages near water sources. Houses and ramadas were round and constructed of poles covered with bark and tule mats (Kroeber 1925). Most Serrano villages also had a ceremonial house used as a religious center. Other structures within the village might include granaries and sweathouses (Bean and Smith 1978).

Serrano social and political units were clans, patrilineal exogamous territorial groups. Each clan was led by a chief who had both political and ceremonial roles. The chief lived in a principal village within the clan’s territory. The clans were part of a moiety system such that each clan was either a wildcat or coyote clan and marriages could only occur between members of opposite moieties (Earle 2004). On the north side of the San Bernardino Mountains, clan villages were located along the desert-mountain interface on Deep Creek, on the upper Mojave River, in Summit Valley, and in Cajon Pass. The principal plant food available near these villages was juniper berries. These villages also had access to mountain resources, such as acorns and pinyon nuts (ECORP 2019c).

Partly due to their mountainous and desert inland territory, contact between Serrano and Euro-Americans was minimal prior to the early 1800s. In 1819, an asistencia (mission outpost) was established near present-day Redlands and was used to help relocate many Serrano to Mission San Gabriel. However, small groups of Serrano remained in the area northeast of the San Gorgonio Pass and were able to preserve some of their native culture. Today, most Serrano live either on the Morongo or San Manuel reservations (Bean and Smith 1978).

Cahuilla
The Cahuilla spoke a Takic language. The Takic group of languages is part of the Uto-Aztecan language family. The Cahuilla occupied a territory ranging from the San Bernardino Mountains in the north to the Chocolate Mountains and Borrego Springs in the south, and from the Colorado Desert in the east to Palomar Mountain in the west. They engaged in trade, marriage, shared rituals, and war with other groups

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-78 November 2022
2019-185
of Native Americans whose territories they overlapped, primarily the Serrano and Gabrielino (Bean 1972, 1978; Kroeber 1925).

Villages were often located near water sources, most commonly in canyons or near drainages on alluvial fans. Major villages were fully occupied during the winter, but during other seasons task groups made periodic forays to collect various plant foods, with larger groupings from several villages organizing for the annual acorn harvest (Bean and Saubel 1972).

Cahuilla buildings consisted of dome-shaped or rectangular houses, constructed of poles covered with brush and above-ground granaries (Bean 1978; Strong 1929). Other material culture included baskets, pottery, and grinding implements; stone tools, arrow shaft straighteners and bows; clothing (loincloths, blankets, rope, sandals, skirts, and diapers); and various ceremonial objects made from mineral, plant, and animal substances (Bean 1972).

As many as 10,000 Cahuilla may have existed at the time of European contact in the eighteenth century (Bean 1978). As of 1974, approximately 900 people claimed Cahuilla ancestry (Bean 1978).

4.4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
Assembly Bill 52
Effective July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill (AB) 52 amended CEQA to require that: 1) a lead agency provide notice to those California Native American tribes that requested notice of projects proposed by the lead agency; and 2) for any tribe that responded to the notice within 30 days of receipt with a request for consultation, the lead agency must consult with the tribe. Topics that may be addressed during consultation include TCRs, the potential significance of Project impacts, type of environmental document that should be prepared, and possible mitigation measures and Project alternatives.

Pursuant to AB 52, Section 21073 of the PRC defines California Native American tribes as “a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of the Statutes of 2004.” This includes both federally and non-federally recognized tribes.

Section 21074(a) of the PRC defines TCRs for the purpose of CEQA as:

1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a. included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; and/or
b. included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; and/or
c. a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-79 November 2022
2019-185
5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Because criteria a and b also meet the definition of a historical resource under CEQA, a TCR may also require additional consideration as a historical resource. TCRs may or may not exhibit archaeological, cultural, or physical indicators.

Recognizing that California tribes are experts in their TCRs and heritage, AB 52 requires that CEQA lead agencies provide tribes that requested notification an opportunity to consult at the commencement of the CEQA process to identify TCRs. Furthermore, because a significant effect on a TCR is considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA, consultation is used to develop appropriate avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation measures.

Summary of AB 52 Consultation
On October 20, 2022, the City of Hemet notified the following California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Proposed Project:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
• Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
• Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Pala Band of Mission Indians
• Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians
• Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
• Ramona Band of Cahuilla
• Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
• Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
Each recipient was provided a brief description of the Project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the tribe has 30 days to request consultation.

As a result of the initial notification letters, the City of Hemet receive the following responses:

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-80 November 2022
2019-185
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) responded via email on November 8, 2022, indicating the Proposed Project Area lies within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. ACBCI’s response letter also requested the following:
o A cultural resources inventory of the Project Area by a qualified archaeologist prior to any development activities in the area
o A copy of the records search with associated survey reports and site records from the information center
o Copies of any cultural resource documentation (report and site records) generated in connection with the Project
The City of Hemet has elected to initiate consultation with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians on November 30th.

No response was received from the other contacted California Native American tribes. The 30-day response period concluded on November 21, 2022.

Consultation is ongoing and will be concluded pursuant to AB 52 prior to the adoption of the CEQA document.

4.18.2 Tribal Cultural Resources (XVIII) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined
in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either
a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-81 November 2022
2019-185
lead agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native American
Tribe.

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
i-ii) While there are no known TCRs in the Project footprint, ground-disturbing activities have the potential to result in the discovery of, or inadvertent damage to, archaeological contexts and human remains, and this possibility cannot be eliminated. Consequently, there is a potential for significant impacts on TCRs. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL5, as discussed in Section 4.5 would reduce impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 are City of Hemet standard conditions prescribed for addressing the unanticipated discovery of historic, archaeologic, and/or tribal cultural resources during construction.

4.18.3 Mitigation Measures
Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-5 as listed in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources.

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems

4.19.1 Utilities and Service Systems (XIX) Environmental Checklist and Discussion Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project would result in the development of 51 residential lots, which would require connections to the City’s water and wastewater systems. The Proposed Project is below the 500 dwelling unit threshold for a Water Supply Assessment. Due to the scale of the proposed development, it is not anticipated that 51 new connections for single-family homes would require the construction or expansion of water or wastewater treatment facilities and would comply with conditions identified in LHMWD Ordinance No. 176 regarding no net demand increase. LHMWD has provided a will serve letter dated October 25, 2022, and set conditions of approval for the Proposed Project (Appendix P; LHMWD 2022). In addition to meeting the conditions of LHMWD Ordinance No. 176, conditions of approval identified in the will serve letter include payment of applicable fees and construction of any required facilities in accordance with LHMWD approved plans and standards and specifications. The construction of required

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-82 November 2022
2019-185
facilities would involve the installation of below grade water piping to convey water from the source.

Construction would occur within existing roadways which do not contain sensitive resources. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Proposed Project includes stormwater drainage improvements. Improvements include the construction of a water quality basin. Runoff from the proposed residential lots would be conveyed to the water quality basin, which has been designed to capture the volume from the post development 100-year flood event. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Proposed Project would require connections to electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication utilities. Electric power would be provided by Southern California Edison. Natural gas service would be provided by the Southern California Gas Company. The Proposed Project is located adjacent to existing streets and existing development of residential land uses. As such, utilities are available in the immediate project area to serve the Project Area. All required improvements have been analyzed as part of the Proposed Project in this Initial Study. Impacts would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
Less than Significant Impact.

Potable water to the Project Area would be supplied by the LHMWD. LHMWD provided the City with a will serve letter regarding this Project on October 25, 2022. The will serve letter is a statement of water and sewer service availability where LHMWD has committed to providing water service for this Project so long as conditions identified in the letter are met. As previously identified, these conditions include the payment of fees, construction of required facilities, and compliance with conditions in LHMWD Ordinance No. 176 (LHMWD 2022). Impacts would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-83 November 2022
2019-185
Wastewater generated by the Proposed Project would be treated by the LHMWD. It is anticipated that the addition of 51 residential lots would not generate wastewater volumes that would exceed the treatment capacity of LHMWD. Impacts would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and development density presented in the General Plan. As previously stated, the Project Area is designated by the City’s General Plan as LMDR.

The primary purpose of lands designated LMDR is to provide low and medium density housing at a density of 5.1 to 8.0 du/ac. The Proposed Project proposes the development of 51 residential lots on what is currently vacant land and is therefore consistent with the City General Plan designation of LMDR. As such, the Proposed Project is within the growth contemplated by the General Plan. The addition of 51 residential lots is not anticipated to generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local solid waste facilities. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would comply with all solid waste reduction goals. Impacts would be less than significant.

Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact.

Waste generated by the Proposed Project would comply with solid waste statues and regulations. No impact would occur.

4.19.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts were identified, and no mitigation measures are required.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-84 November 2022
2019-185

4.20 Wildfire

4.20.1 Environmental Setting
The Project Area is not located within or adjacent to a state responsibility area (Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 2019). However, the Project Area is in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (City of Hemet 2012b).

4.20.2 Wildfire (XX) Environmental Checklist and Discussion If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact.

The City has incorporated into Chapter 14 of the municipal code mechanisms and techniques to reduce the fire hazards to proposed development that encroaches into the hillsides and interface areas.

Provisions include ensuring adequate ingress and egress to enable safe and rapid passage of both fire equipment and private vehicles; requiring all development to provide a dependable supply of water for both normal daily consumption and emergency fire needs; adopting building codes that establish structural design and construction codes that reduce vulnerability to fire hazards such as those regarding roofing materials, vents, setbacks, exterior siding, overhangs, and glass; and requiring perimeter protection from native vegetation. The City's project review process includes reviews by the City’s Fire, Building and Safety, and Planning Departments for consideration of wildfire risk, emergency access requirements, and consistency with development standards set forth in the City’s municipal code. The Proposed Project’s design meets City standards and the latest building construction codes. Established City procedures including plan check, permit issuance, and construction inspection would ensure implementation of the Proposed Project is consistent with the approved design. Impacts would be less than significant.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
Less than Significant Impact.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-85 November 2022
2019-185
The Project Area is relatively flat. The Proposed Project would not substantially alter the slope, wind patterns, or other factors that could exacerbate wildfire risks. Undeveloped areas adjacent to the Project Area include Park Hill to the east and an undeveloped parcel just to the west. As mentioned previously, the Project Area is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (City of Hemet 2012b). Prevailing winds onsite move in a WSW direction, from Park Hill. However, the Project Area is bound by single family residential development to the north, south, and west. The City's project review process includes reviews by the City’s Fire, Building and Safety, and Planning Departments for consideration of wildfire risk, emergency access requirements, and consistency with General Plan policies to minimize and avoid exacerbation of wildfire risk. Due to the developed nature of the Project Area, the Proposed Project’s design, and the City’s project review process, as described in the response to question a above, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to exacerbate wildfire risks. Impacts would be less than significant.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
Less than Significant Impact.

The Proposed Project would require the installation and maintenance of infrastructure to serve the proposed residential use of the Project Area. Infrastructure would include roads and utility connections.

The Project Area is located in an area with existing infrastructure to which the Proposed Project would connect. The installation and maintenance of proposed infrastructure improvements is not anticipated to exacerbate the fire risk in the Project Area. Impacts would be less than significant.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project, would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact.

The Project Area is relatively flat is surrounded by residential development to the north, south, and west and Park Hill to the east. Park Hill is a significant topographic feature with substantial slopes. A drainage easement is located along the eastern boundary of the Project Area which will remain in place. It is reasonable to assume the storm drain facilities offsite are adequately designed to handle the volume and

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-86 November 2022
2019-185
velocity of stormwater runoff from areas offsite, No portion of Park Hill is included within the Project Area, as such the Proposed Project would not alter the slope, grade, or drainage patterns of Park Hill upslope of the existing storm drain.

The Project includes a proposed water quality basin on the western boundary of the Project Area. A registered civil engineer has designed the Project’s grading plan and stormwater management system to meet City development standards, and to safely collect and convey runoff to the proposed water quality basin. As stated previously, during operations the Proposed Project would implement a WQMP. The WQMP details the Proposed Project’s stormwater management system to address post-construction runoff quality and quantity. The Proposed Project’s water quality basin is designed to allow stormwater to infiltrate into the ground reducing the velocity and volume of stormwater that is discharged from the Project Area.

As stated previously, in the response to question a) above, the Proposed Project’s design meets City standards and the latest building construction codes. Compliance with established City procedures including plan check, permit issuance, and construction inspection would ensure implementation of the Proposed Project is consistent with the approved design. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. No impact would occur.

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

4.21.1 Mandatory Findings of Significance (XXI) Environmental Checklist and Discussion
Does the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

Impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils (including paleontological resources), and tribal cultural resources are discussed in the respective sections of this Initial Study.

Impacts would be less than significant with Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, CUL-1 through CUL-5, and GEO-1 through GEO-2.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-87 November 2022
2019-185
Impacts from the Proposed Project on hydrology, hazardous materials, and wildfire are discussed in corresponding sections of this Initial Study. As discussed in their respective sections of this Initial Study document, no significant impacts associated with hydrology, hazardous materials, and wildfire have been identified. Impacts from the Proposed Project would not be cumulatively considerable with the implementation of the Mitigation Measures listed in this Initial Study.

Does the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

The analysis within this Initial Study demonstrates that the Project would not have any individually limited, but cumulatively considerable impacts. As presented in the analysis provided in this Initial Study, the Project has no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with implementation of mitigation with respect to all environmental issues. Due to the limited scope of direct physical impacts to the environment associated with this development project, the Project’s impacts are project-specific in nature. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures found throughout this document, the Project will not result in significant, unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts. Impacts from the Proposed Project would not be cumulatively considerable.

Does the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Have environmental effects that will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

As identified in this Initial Study, the impact category of biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils (including paleontological resources), and tribal cultural resources may have adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. All the Project’s impacts on human beings, both direct and indirect, were identified and mitigated if necessary. Direct and indirect impacts to human beings would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures listed in this Initial Study.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-88 November 2022
2019-185

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-1 November 2022
2019-185

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
City of Hemet
Lead Agency
H.P. Kang, Principal Planner
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

CEQA Documentation/Air Quality/Biological Resources/Cultural Resources/Greenhouse Gas/Noise David Atwater, Project Manager/Senior Environmental Planner Anne Surdzial, AICP, QA/QC
Samantha Alfaro, Environmental Planner
Julian Acuna, Assistant Archaeologist
Kristen Wasz, Senior Biologist
Lauren Simpson, Staff Biologist
Robert Cunningham, Staff Archaeologist
Rosey Worden, Air Quality/GHG/Noise Analyst
Seth Myers, Senior Air Quality/GHG/Noise Analyst
Scott Taylor, Regulatory Specialist/Senior Biologist
Wendy Blumel, RPA, Senior Archaeologist

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-2 November 2022
2019-185

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-3 November 2022
2019-185

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-1 November 2022
2019-185

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bean, L. J.
1978 Cahuilla. Handbook of North American Indians. 8.
1972 Mukat’s People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Bean, L. J. and K. S. Saubel
1972 Temalpakh (from the Earth): Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Malki Museum Press., Banning.

Bean, L. J. and C. R. Smith
1978 Serrano. In: Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California. 8: California.

Heizer Robert F., editor. p. 570-574. Published by Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Board of Forestry and Fire Protection
2019 State Responsibility Area Viewer. Available at https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-andprograms/state-responsibility-area-viewer/. Accessed on November 12, 2019. [CARB] California Air Resources Board
2017 EMFAC2017 Web Database Emissions Inventory. https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/. [Caltrans] California Department of Transportation
2013 Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. 2019 California Department of Transportation Officially Designated Scenic Highways for Riverside County. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscapearchitecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed on October 28, 2019.
[CDC] California Department of Conservation
2017 Riverside County Important Farmland 2016, Sheet1 of 3. Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Map published July 2017. 2019 EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp. Accessed on October 29, 2019.
[CGS] California Geological Survey

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-2 November 2022
2019-185
2008 Updated Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production-Consumption (P-C) Region, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California.

Cultural Systems Research
2005 Inland Feeder Project: Final Report, Native American Ethnography and Ethnohistory.

Prepared for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles. Report #RI5088 on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Menlo Park, California.
[DOC] California Department of Conservation
2022 California Important Farmland Finder. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed November 4, 2022. [DTSC] California Department of Toxic Substances Control 2019a DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Available at: https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/. Accessed on October 30, 2019. 2019b EnviroStor. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed on October 30, 2019
Earle, D. D.
2004 Native Population and Settlement in the Western Mojave Desert in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Proceedings of the Millennium Conference: the Human Journey and Ancient Life in California's Deserts. May 9-12, 2001, Maturango Museum Press, Ridgecrest, California.
[ECDMS] California Energy Commission
2019 California Energy Consumption Database. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/Default.aspx. [ECORP] ECORP Consulting, Inc.
2019a Biological Technical Report and MSHCP Consistency Analysis Proposed Residential Development in Hemet, California. November 2019.
2019b Aquatic Resources Delineation. November 2019.
2019c Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory of a 13-acre Parcel in the City of Hemet, Riverside County, California.
[FEMA] Federal Emergency Management Agency
2017 Flood Insurance Rate Map, Riverside County, California and Incorporated Areas. Panel 1490 of 3805. Map Number 06065C1490H. Map revised April 19, 2017.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-3 November 2022
2019-185
[FHWA] Federal Highway Administration
2008 Roadway Construction Noise Model.
2011 Effective Noise Control During Nighttime Construction. Available online at:
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/workshops/accessible/schexnayder_paper.htm. [FTA] Federal Transit Administration
2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
[Group Delta] Group Delta Consultants, Inc.
2022 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 800 North Girard Street, Hemet, California. May 12, 2022.

Hemet, City of
2012a City of Hemet General Plan 2030 Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse #2010061088. January 12, 2012.
2012b City of Hemet 2030 General Plan. Adopted January 24, 2012. 2019a Land Use Plan. Last updated May 14, 2019.
2019b Municipal Code https://library.municode.com/ca/hemet/codes/code_of_ordinances Kroeber, A. L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin 78. Washington DC: Bureau of American Ethnology. p. 7.
[LGC] LGC Geo-Environmental, Inc.
2018 Supplemental Geologic Fault Hazard Study of the Riverside County Earthquake Zone, for the Proposed Residential Development, Located at 800 N. Girard Street, City of Hemet, Riverside County, California. Project No. G18-1647-10. September 10, 2018. 2019 Preliminary Infiltration Testing Investigation for the Proposed Single-Family Residential Development, Located at 800 N. Girard Street, City of Hemet, Riverside County, California.

Project No. G18-1647-20. October 14, 2019.
2021 Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report for the Proposed Single-Family Residential Development, Located at 800 North Girard Street, City of Hemet, Riverside County, California. Project No. G18-1647-10. February 10, 2021.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-4 November 2022
2019-185
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
2019 Paleontological resources for the proposed 13-acre parcel Project, ECORP Project # 2019- 185, in the City of Hemet, Riverside County, project area. October 4. [RCALUC] Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
2017 Hemet-Ryan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted February 9, 2017.

Riverside, County of
2020 Transportation Analysis Guidelines for Level of Service Vehicle Miles Traveled. December 2020.
[SCAQMD] South Coast Air Quality Management District
1992 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide.
1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
2008 Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]). 2009 Localized Significance Threshold Appendix C – Mass Rate LST Look-Up Tables. Revised October 21, 2009. http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/LST/LST.html. [Sikand] Sikand Engineering Associates
2020 Preliminary Drainage Report for Tentative Tract No. 37558 (APN 439-230-005) in the City of Hemet, Riverside County. January 27, 2020.

Strong, W. D.
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. [SWRCB] California State Water Resources Control Board
2019 GeoTracker. Available at: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed on October 30, 2019.

Translutions, Inc.
2022 800 N. Girard Street, Hemet California – Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Analyses. October 7, 2022.

Urban Crossroads
2019 800 N. Girard Street (APN 439‐230‐005) Traffic Impact Analysis City Of Hemet. October 30, 2019.
[WRCOG] Western Riverside Council of Governments

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-5 November 2022
2019-185
2014 Subregional Climate Action Plan.
http://www.wrcog.cog.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/188/Subregional-Climate-ActionPlan-CAP-PDF?bidId= [WEAL] Western Electro-Acoustic Laboratory, Inc.
2000 Sound Transmission Sound Test Laboratory Report No. TL 96-186.

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-6 November 2022
2019-185

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Girard Subdivision TTM-37558 and ZC-20-001
4-1 November 2022
2019-185

7.0 LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Air Quality Model Data Outputs – Daily Emissions Appendix B – Biological Technical Report and MSHCP Consistency Analysis Appendix C – Aquatic Resources Delineation
Appendix D – Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report Appendix E – Supplemental Geologic Fault Hazard Study
Appendix F – Paleontological Record Search Results
Appendix G – Air Quality Model Data Outputs – Annual Emissions Appendix H – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix I – Preliminary Infiltration Testing Investigation Appendix J – Preliminary Drainage Report
Appendix K – Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix L – Baseline Noise Measurements
Appendix M – Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix N – Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis Appendix O – AB 52 Consultation
Appendix P – Lake Hemet Municipal Water District Will Serve Letter

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001

APPENDIX A
Air Quality Model Data Outputs – Daily Emissions

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001

APPENDIX B
Biological Technical Report and MSHCP Consistency Analysis

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001

APPENDIX C
Aquatic Resources Delineation

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001

APPENDIX D
Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001

APPENDIX E
Supplemental Geologic Fault Hazard Study

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001

APPENDIX F
Paleontological Record Search Results

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001

APPENDIX G
Air Quality Model Data Outputs – Annual Emissions

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001

APPENDIX H
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001

APPENDIX I
Preliminary Infiltration Testing Investigation

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001

APPENDIX J
Preliminary Drainage Report

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001

APPENDIX K
Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001

APPENDIX L
Baseline Noise Measurements

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001

APPENDIX M
Traffic Impact Analysis

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001

APPENDIX N
Trip Generation and VMT Screening Analysis

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001

APPENDIX O
AB 52 Consultation

14.A

Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Girard Subdivision, TTM-37558, and ZC-20-001

APPENDIX P
Lake Hemet Municipal Water District Will Serve Letter

14.A

APPENDIX A-P
https://www.hemetca.gov/797/Environmental-Documents

14.A

Zone Change 20-001
Tentative Tract Map 37558
800 N Girard Street
Aerial Map
Project Site
City of San Jacinto

14.A

Zone Change 20-001
Tentative Tract Map 37558
800 N Girard Street
Zoning Map
Project Site

14.A

Zone Change 20-001
Tentative Tract Map 37558
800 N Girard Street
GP Map
Project Site

14.A

Effective May 1, 2019
Rev. 8/2022
City of Hemet
Development Impact Fees
Residential
Mobile Home
Senior
Multi-Family
Dwelling
Single Family
Dwelling
Townhome/
Duplex
Bridge Signals & Thoroughfares $1,537 $2,030 $2,948 $1,805 Fire Suppression Facilities $354 $480 $560 $424
General Facilities $493 $669 $780 $591
General Plan $300 $300 $300 $300
Law Enforcement Facilities $298 $404 $471 $357
Library Expansion Facilities $465 $631 $735 $557
L&LMD $25 $26 $40 $40
Parks & Recreation Facilities $1,099 $1,490 $1,736 $1,315 Retention Basin Capacity Fee $1,900/Acre $1,900/Acre $1,900/Acre $1,900/Acre Sewer Connection $145 $145 $250 $250
Storm Drainage Facilities $1,147 $474 $1,405 $1,013
Valley Wide Park & Recreation $179 $243 $283 $214
Water Holding and Distribution $149 $225 $483 $483
Administrative Processing Fee 3% of Total Impact Fees
MSHCP
<=8.0 Dwelling Units/Acre $2,104 $2,104 $2,104 $2,104

8.1 – 14.0 Dwelling Units/Acre $1,347 $1,347 $1,347 $1,347 >=14.1 Dwelling Units/Acre $1,094 $1,094 $1,094 $1,094
MSHCP Admin Fee 1% of MSHCP Fees
TUMF Admin Fee 1% of TUMF Fees
All fees are calculated per unit unless otherwise stated.

There are other development fees that may be due for your project. Below are those fees and contact information for those agencies:

School Fees: Hemet Unified School District
(951) 765-5100
San Jacinto Unified School District
(951) 929-7700
TUMF (Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee) (951) 405-6700 http://tools.pbid.com/wrcog
Sewer & Water Fees EMWD (Eastern Municipal Water District) (951) 928-3777
LHMWD (Lake Hemet Municipal Water District)
(951) 658-3241

14.A

Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees

14.A

FEE SCHEDULE PAGE
Building Fees 1
Fire Prevention Fees 24
Planning Fees 31
Engineering Fees 36
Public Works Fees 43
Police Fees 46
Code Enforcement Fees 48
Finance Fees 49
City Clerk Fees 50
Library Fees 51
Facility Rental Rates and Charges 52
Business License Fees 53
Table of Contents

14.A

City of Hemet

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - BUILDING FEES
Fee Unit Note
1 Permit Processing Fee (Applies to All Permits Issued) $92 2 Minimum Permit Fee - Commercial $414
3 Minimum Permit Fee - Residential $230
4 Technology Fee (% of valuation) valuation x .002
5 Strong Motion Instrumentation (SMI) Fee Calculation
a) Residential $0.50 or valuation x .00013
b) Commercial $0.50 or valuation x .00028
6 Building Standards (SB 1473) Fee Calculation (Valuation) a) $1 - $25,000 $1
b) Each Add'l $25,000 or fraction thereof Add $1
7 Certificate of Occupancy
a) Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $736
b) Certificate of Occupancy
i) 1 - 5000 sq ft $245
ii) 5001 - 25,000 sq ft $368
iii) each additional 25,000 sq ft $92
8 Change of Use $368
9 Change of Address $184
Copies, Re-Print, Change Of Contractor
10 Printing Scanned / Archived Drawings actual cost plus $46 per 15 min. of staff time
[a]
11 Job Card / Permit Re-Print $46
Violation Fees
12 Work Done Without Permits Per Hemet Municipal Code.

Other Fees
13 Permit / Plan Review Extension $92 each
14 Planning & Fire Plan Review Processing Fee $92 each
15 Planning & Fire Permit Processing Fee $92 each
16 Excess Plan Review Fee (for 3rd and subsequent reviews) $184 per hour Permit Processing and Other Fees
Activity Description
1

14.A

City of Hemet

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - BUILDING FEES
Fee Unit Note
Permit Processing and Other Fees
Activity Description
17 Expedited Plan Review 1.5x Base Plan Review Fee
18 Partial Inspection / Extra Inspection Fee (per inspection) $92 each 19 Re-inspection Fee Per California Building Code and Hemet Municipal Code as Amended
$92 each
20 Missed inspection Fee $92 each
21 After Hours Inspections (Overtime) $221 per hour
22 Records Research $184 per hour
23 Month or Yearly Building Permit Activity $92
24 Special Inspector Registration $92
25 Microfilm Fee
a) 11" x 17" or less (per page) $1 per page
b) Over 11" x 17" (per sheet) $6 per sheet
26 Plan Storage valuation x .00018
27 Training Fee (% of valuation) valuation x .0003
28 Credit Card Transaction Processing Fee (% of Fees Paid by Credit Card)
3%
29 Fees for Services Not Listed in this Fee Schedule (per 1/2 hour) $92 [a] Printing Scanned / Archived Drawings-Price of printing service, consultant services actual fee plus $184/hour of staff time, charged in 15 minute increments, to research, review, and pick up from service. 2

14.A

City of Hemet

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - BUILDING FEES
Plan Review Fee Permit Inspection Fee Note
Electrical Panel/Pedestal
1 Electrical Pedestal/Panel Install or Upgrade (Max 200 AMP) $322 HVAC Change-Out
2 HVAC Change-Out (Residential) $276
3 HVAC Change-Out (Commercial)
a) First Unit $322
b) Each Additional Unit $46
Re-Pipe
4 Re-Pipe of SFR $92 $414
Reroof
5 Reroof Of Non Habitable Space <500 SF $276
6 Reroof SFR
a) <4,000 SF $368
b) <4,000 SF From Composition To Tile $138 $460
7 Reroof Commercial
a) 25,000 SF or less $460
b) Each additional 25,000 SF $92
Solar / Photovoltaic
8 Solar Streamline Permit $414
9 Solar / Photovoltaic Roof Mounted
a) Less than 50kw $184 $184
b) 50kw - 250kw $276 $368
c) Above 250kW $736 $920
10 Solar / Photovoltaic Ground Mounted
a) Less than 50kw $276 $276
b) 50kw - 250kw $368 $460
c) Above 250kW $920 $1,104
11 Battery Storage
a) First Battery $138 $322
b) Each Additional $46
Commonly Requested Minor Permits
Fees for Commonly Requested Building Permit Types. Fees shown in this section include all applicable inspection, and plan review fees).

Additional fees apply for permit processing and services provided by other City Departments (e.g. Planning Review), Technology Enhancement Fees, and Fees Collected on Behalf of Other Agencies (e.g. State of California).

Activity Description
3

14.A

City of Hemet

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - BUILDING FEES
Plan Review Fee Permit Inspection Fee Note
Commonly Requested Minor Permits
Fees for Commonly Requested Building Permit Types. Fees shown in this section include all applicable inspection, and plan review fees).

Additional fees apply for permit processing and services provided by other City Departments (e.g. Planning Review), Technology Enhancement Fees, and Fees Collected on Behalf of Other Agencies (e.g. State of California).

Activity Description
12 Battery Storage with Solar Installation
a) First Battery $92 $46
b) Each Additional $46
13 Residential EV Charging Plug $92 $184
Tub to Walk-In Shower
14 Tub To Walk In Shower $92 $276
Wall Heater Replacement
15 Wall Heater Residential Replacement $230
Water Heater Replacement
16 Water Heater Residential Replacement $138
Window Change-Out
17 Window Change-out $92 $138
Block and Retaining Walls
18 Block 50' or less 6' in height or less $276 $276
a) Each additional 100' $46
19 Block Wall Over 6' in height 50' in length $368 $368 a) Each additional 100' $61
20 Retaining Wall 50' or less 6' in height or less $368 $368 a) Each additional 100' $61
21 Retaining Wall Over 6' in height 50' in length $460 $460 a) Each additional 100' $77
Special Inspection and Housing Assessment
22 Special Housing Inspection $276
23 Housing Assessment Permit $460
4

14.A

City of Hemet

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - BUILDING FEES
Occupancy Classification Threshold SqFt Plan Review Base Fee Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Permit
Inspection
Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Total
Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Note
1 100 $552 $1,288 $1,839
200 $552 $1,472 $2,023300 $552 $1,564 $2,115400 $644 $1,655 $2,299500 $736 $37 $1,747 $92 $2,483 $129 1,000 $920 $37 $2,207 $74 $3,127 $110
1,500 $1,104 $74 $2,575 $74 $3,679 $1472,000 $1,472 $74 $2,943 $147 $4,415 $2212,500 $1,839 $74 $3,679 $147 $5,518 $2213,000 $2,207 $37 $4,415 $74 $6,622 $1104,000 $2,575 $37 $5,150 $37 $7,726 $745,000 $2,943 $28 $5,518 $28 $8,461 $55 2 Electrical Plan Review and Permitting,
if Required
10% of Base
Plan Review
Fee
10% of Base
Permit
Inspection Fee
10% of Plan
Review and
Permit
Inspection Fee
3 Mechanical Plan Review and
Permitting, if Required
10% of Base
Plan Review
Fee
10% of Base
Permit
Inspection Fee
10% of Plan
Review and
Permit
Inspection Fee
4 Plumbing Plan Review and Permitting,
if Required
10% of Base
Plan Review
Fee
10% of Base
Permit
Inspection Fee
10% of Plan
Review and
Permit
Inspection Fee
New Construction and Residential Additions
R3 - Single-Family, Duplex, Additional Dwelling UnitsNew Construction, Room Addition, Garage 5

14.A

City of Hemet

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - BUILDING FEES
Occupancy Classification Threshold SqFt Plan Review Base Fee Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Permit
Inspection
Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Total
Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Note
New Construction and Residential Additions
5 Production Phase Units / Identical
Buildings
10% of Base
Plan Review
Fee for Master
Unit
100% of Base
Permit
10% of Base
Plan Review
Fee;
100% of Base
Permit
Inspection Fee
[a]
[a] For identical buildings built by the same builder on the same lot or in the same tract and for which building permits are issued at the same time.* Plan review fees include up to two plan checks. The City will bill hourly for additional plan review required.** Amounts exclude City of Hemet standard Permitting fees and State of California fees. 6

14.A

City of Hemet

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - BUILDING FEES
Occupancy Classification Threshold SqFt Plan Review Base Fee Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Permit
Inspection
Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Total
Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Note
1 100 $276 $460 $736
200 $368 $736 $1,104300 $506 $1,196 $1,701400 $552 $1,288 $1,839500 $598 $28 $1,426 $46 $2,023 $74 1,000 $736 $21 $1,655 $34 $2,391 $55
2 Electrical Plan Review and Permitting,
if Required
10% of Base
Plan Review
Fee
10% of Base
Permit
Inspection Fee
10% of Plan
Review and
Permit
Inspection Fee
3 Mechanical Plan Review and
Permitting, if Required
10% of Base
Plan Review
Fee
10% of Base
Permit
Inspection Fee
10% of Plan
Review and
Permit
Inspection Fee
4 Plumbing Plan Review and Permitting,
if Required
10% of Base
Plan Review
Fee
10% of Base
Permit
Inspection Fee
10% of Plan
Review and
Permit
Inspection Fee
* Plan review fees include up to two plan checks. The City will bill hourly for additional plan review required.** Amounts exclude City of Hemet standard Permitting fees and State of California fees.

Garage/Room Conversions and Residential Remodels with Structural Improvements R3 - Single-Family, Duplex, Additional Dwelling UnitsGarage/Room Conversions and Residential Remodels with Structural Improvements 7

14.A

City of Hemet

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - BUILDING FEES
Occupancy Classification Threshold SqFt Plan Review Base Fee Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Permit
Inspection
Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Total
Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Note
1 100 $184 $460 $644
200 $276 $736 $1,012300 $322 $1,196 $1,518400 $368 $1,288 $1,655500 $414 $28 $1,426 $46 $1,839 $74 1,000 $552 $21 $1,655 $34 $2,207 $55
2 Electrical Plan Review and Permitting,
if Required
10% of Base
Plan Review
Fee
10% of Base
Permit
Inspection Fee
10% of Plan
Review and
Permit
Inspection Fee
3 Mechanical Plan Review and
Permitting, if Required
10% of Base
Plan Review
Fee
10% of Base
Permit
Inspection Fee
10% of Plan
Review and
Permit
Inspection Fee
4 Plumbing Plan Review and Permitting,
if Required
10% of Base
Plan Review
Fee
10% of Base
Permit
Inspection Fee
10% of Plan
Review and
Permit
Inspection Fee
* Plan review fees include up to two plan checks. The City will bill hourly for additional plan review required. ** Amounts exclude City of Hemet standard Permitting fees and State of California fees.

Garage/Room Conversions and Residential Remodels without Structural Improvements R3 - Single-Family, Duplex, Additional Dwelling UnitsGarage/Room Conversions and Residential Remodels without Structural Improvements 8

14.A

City of Hemet

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE - BUILDING FEES
Occupancy Classification Threshold SqFt Plan Review Base Fee Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Permit
Inspection
Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Total
Base Fee
Fee Per
Add'l 100 SF or
Fraction
Thereof
Note
1 500 $2,207 $74 $3,311 $74 $5,518 $147
1,000 $2,575 $28 $3,679 $92 $6,254 $120
5,000 $3,679 $15 $7,358 $59 $11,037 $74
10,000 $4,415 $7 $10,301 $29 $14,715 $37
20,000 $5,150 $17 $13,244 $54 $18,394 $71
50,000 $10,301 $12 $29,431 $47 $39,732 $59
100,000 $16,187 $9 $52,975 $35 $69,162 $44
2 500 $1,104 $166 $2,483 $55 $3,587 $221
1,000 $1,931 $21 $2,759 $69 $4,691 $905,000 $2,759 $11 $5,518 $44 $8,277 $55 10,000 $3,311 $4 $7,726 $15 $11,037 $18
25,000 $3,863 $15 $9,933 $49 $13,796 $64
50,000 $7,726 $12 $22,073 $36 $29,799 $48
3 500 $1,472 $37 $3,679 $74 $5,150 $110
1,000 $1,655 $5 $4,047 $9 $5,702 $14
5,000 $1,839 $7 $4,415 $15 $6,254 $22
10,000 $2,207 $4 $5,150 $15 $7,358 $18
20,000 $2,575 $9 $6,622 $27 $9,197 $3650,000 $5,150 $6 $14,715 $24 $19,866 $29 100,000 $8,093 $4 $26,488 $18 $34,581 $22
Commercial / Non-Residential - New Construction, Tenant Improvement, and Shell A, B, E, F, H, I, M, R4, S -Assembly; Business; Care / Assisted Living; Educational; Factory; Hazard; Institutional; Mercantile; StorageNew Construction / SF AdditionA, B, E, F, H, I, M, R1, R2, R4, S -Assembly; Business; Care / Assisted Living; Educational; Factory; Hazard; Institutional; Mercantile; Hotel/Motel; Apartment; StorageTenant ImprovementA, B, E, F, H, I, M, R4, S -Assembly; Business; Care / Assisted Living; Educational; Factory; Hazard; Institutional; Mercantile; Hotel/Motel; Apartment; StorageShell 9