Hemet City Council
April 22, 2025

20.B.

Localized Significance – Construction
Phase
On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Paving 6.94 9.95 0.30 0.27
Architectural Coating 0.83 1.13 0.02 0.02
Total of overlapping phases 17.62 24.08 0.70 0.64
SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet) or less2 234 1,100 7 4 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
1 Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for two acres in Hemet/San Jacinto Valley Source Receptor Area (SRA 28). Project will disturb a maximum of 4.0 acres per day (see Table 7 of Appendix G)). 2 The nearest sensitive receptor is located 5 meters south; therefore, the 25-meter threshold has been used.

Table 6 Localized Significance – Construction (see Table 11 of Appendix G) Regional Operational Emissions
The operations-related criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed using the CalEEMod model. The operating emissions were based on the year 2027. The summer and winter emissions created by the proposed project’s longterm operations were calculated, and the highest emissions from either summer or winter are summarized in Table 7 – Regional Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions (lbs/day).

Regional Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions (lbs/day) Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources2 7.86 0.16 16.40 0.00 0.01 0.01
Energy Usage3 0.05 0.94 0.40 0.01 0.08 0.08
Mobile Sources4 5.54 3.93 35.60 0.09 7.56 1.96
Total Emissions 13.45 5.03 52.40 0.10 7.65 2.05
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.21
2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from on-site natural gas usage. 4 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust.

Table 7 Regional Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions (lbs/day) (see Table 12 of Appendix G) Table 7 – Regional Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions (lbs/day) provides the project's unmitigated operational emissions. Table 12 Regional Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions (lbs/day) from Appendix G shows that the project does not exceed the SCAQMD daily emission threshold, and regional operational emissions are considered less than significant.21
21 Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, pages 50 -- 51 (Appendix G).

20.B.

Localized Operational Emissions
Table 8 – Localized Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions shows the calculated emissions for the proposed operational activities compared with appropriate LSTs. The LST analysis only includes on-site sources; however, the CalEEMod software outputs do not separate on-site and off-site emissions for mobile sources. For a worstcase scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table 8 – Localized Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions include all on-site project-related stationary sources and 10% of the project-related new mobile sources. This percentage estimates the amount of project-related new vehicle traffic that will occur on-site.

Localized Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions On-Site Emission Source
On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources2 0.16 16.40 0.01 0.01
Energy Usage3 0.94 0.40 0.08 0.08
On-Site Vehicle Emissions4 0.39 3.56 0.76 0.20
Total Emissions 1.49 20.36 0.85 0.29
SCAQMD Threshold for 25 meters (82 feet) or less2 371 1,965 4 2 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
1 Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for 5 acres in Hemet/San Jacinto Valley Source Receptor Area (SRA 28). The project will be approximately 10.07 acres. 2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from electricity generation and on-site natural gas usage. 4 On-site vehicular emissions are based on 1/10 of the gross vehicular emissions and road dust. 5 The nearest sensitive receptor is located 5 meters south; therefore, the 25-meter threshold has been used.

Table 8 Localized Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions (see Table 13 of Appendix G) Table 8 – Localized Significance – Unmitigated Operational Emissions indicates that the local operational emissions would not exceed the LST thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors adjacent to the project. Therefore, the project will not result in significant Localized Operational emissions.22
c) Less than significant impact.

Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are considered land uses or other population groups more sensitive to air pollution than others due to their exposure. As identified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely and chronically ill, and those with cardio-respiratory diseases. For CEQA purposes, a sensitive receptor would be a location where a sensitive individual could remain for 24-hours or longer, such as residencies, hospitals, schools, etc.

The closest existing sensitive receptors to the project (site area) are the single-family residences located approximately 16 feet to the south of the project site. 22 Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, pages 51 – 52 (Appendix G).

20.B.

Construction-Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impact
The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during the proposed project's construction. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued the Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines and Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015, to describe the algorithms, recommended exposure variates, cancer, and noncancer health values, and the air modeling protocols needed to perform a health risk assessment (HRA) under the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Hazard identification includes identifying all substances evaluated for cancer risk and/or non-cancer acute, 8- hour, and chronic health impacts and identifying any multi-pathway substances that present a cancer risk or chronic non-cancer hazard via non-inhalation routes of exposure.

Given the relatively limited amount of heavy-duty construction equipment and the construction schedule, the proposed project would not result in a substantial long-term source of toxic air containment emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk.

Furthermore, construction-based particulate matter (PM) emissions (including diesel exhaust emissions) do not exceed any local or regional thresholds. Therefore, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during the proposed project's construction.23
Valley Fever
Coccidioidomycosis, more commonly known as “valley fever,” is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of the Coccidioides immitis fungus, which grows in the soils of the southwestern United States. When fungal spores are present, any activity that disturbs the soil, such as digging, grading, or other earth-moving operations, can cause the spores to become airborne and thereby increase the risk of exposure. The ecologic factors that appear to be most conducive to survival and replication of the spores are high summer temperatures, mild winters, sparse rainfall, and alkaline sandy soils. Per the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), in 2018, there were between five and nine cases of coccidioidomycosis per 100,000 people reported in Riverside County.

Statewide incidences in 2018 were 18.8 per 100,000 people (CDPH 2021), occurring largely in Central California north of the project location. The project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which would require fugitive dust mitigation, which would control the release of the Coccidioides immitis fungus during construction activities. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to valley fever exposure for sensitive receptors.24
CO Hot Spot Emissions
CO is a pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential 23 Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, page 50 (Appendix G). 24 Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, page 50 (Appendix G).

20.B.

local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the State and Federal CO standards presented in Section 5.0 – Thresholds of Significance (Appendix G).

To determine if the proposed project could cause emission levels in excess of the CO standards discussed in Section 5.0, a sensitivity analysis is typically conducted to determine the potential for CO “hot spots” at a number of intersections in the general project vicinity. Because of reduced speeds and vehicle queuing, “hot spots” potentially can occur at high traffic volume intersections with a Level of Service E or worse.

Micro-scale air quality emissions have traditionally been analyzed in environmental documents where the air basin was a non-attainment area for CO. However, the SCAQMD has demonstrated in the CO attainment redesignation request to EPA that there are no “hot spots” anywhere in the air basin, even at intersections with much higher volumes, much worse congestion, and much higher background CO levels than anywhere in Riverside County. If the worst-case intersections in the air basin have no “hot spot” potential, any local impacts will be below thresholds.

The traffic analysis showed that the project would generate 1,537 trips per day. The 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan) showed that an intersection with a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day would not violate the CO standard. The traffic volume at project buildout would be well below 100,000 vehicles and below the necessary volume even to get close to causing a violation of the CO standard. Therefore, no CO “hot spot” modeling was performed, and no significant long-term air quality impact is anticipated on local air quality with the ongoing use of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not be anticipated to increase daily traffic volumes at any study intersection to more than 100,000 vehicles per day, a CO hotspot is not anticipated to occur, and associated impacts would be less than significant.25
d) No impact. Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of materials such as asphalt pavement. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process are short-term in nature. The odor emissions are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor-producing materials. Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted during the project's construction, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and, therefore, should not reach an objectionable level at the nearest sensitive receptors. Due to the short-term nature and limited amounts of odor-producing materials being utilized, no significant impact related to odors would occur during the construction of the proposed project.

The SCAQMD recommends that odor impacts be addressed qualitatively. Such an analysis shall determine whether the project would result in excessive nuisance odors, as defined under the California Code of Regulations and Section 41700 of the California Health and Safety Code. It thus would constitute a public nuisance related to air quality. 25 Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, page 52 (Appendix G).

20.B.

Potential sources that may emit odors during the on-going operations of the proposed project include odor emissions from trash storage areas and vehicle emissions. Due to the distance of the nearest receptors from the project site and through compliance with SCAQMD’s Rule 402, no significant impact related to odors would occur during the ongoing operations of the proposed project.26 Therefore, no significant impact related to odors would occur.

Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts
Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area. However, as with most developments, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which travel well out of the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects, and when wind patterns are considered, it would cover an even larger area. Accordingly, the cumulative analysis for the project’s air quality must be generic by nature.

The project area is out of attainment for ozone and PM10 particulate matter. The construction and operation of cumulative projects will further degrade the local air quality and the air quality of the South Coast Air Basin. The greatest cumulative impact on the quality of regional air cell will be the incremental addition of pollutants, mainly from increased traffic from residential, commercial, and industrial development and the use of heavy equipment and trucks associated with the construction of these projects. Air quality will be temporarily degraded during construction activities that occur separately or simultaneously. However, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. The project does not exceed any of the thresholds of significance and, therefore, is considered less than significant. Therefore, cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.

Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
26 Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, page 49 (Appendix G).

20.B.

Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with an established
native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or another
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Comments:

The results of the Aster Apartment Complex General Biological Assessment, Jurisdictional Determination and Consistency Analysis Report (Biological Assessment), prepared by Natural Resources Assessment, Inc. (NRAI), December 8, 2023 (Appendix H), have found the project will have a less than significant impact with mitigation on species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species. The Biological Assessment is cited here using Section 5.0 – MSHCP Consistency Analysis, Section 6.0 – Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan, Section 7.0 – Jurisdictional Water, Section 8.0 – Raptors, Migratory Birds and Habitat, and Section 9.0 – Project Impacts.27
a) Less than significant impact. As noted in the Biological Assessment, NRAI surveyed the site on September 21, 2023, and found vegetation within the project area consisting of a dense layer of puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris). The site had been graded or disked over time. Plant species found along in more disturbed areas and interspersed in the puncture vine cover include short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), prickly lettuce 27 The Aster Apartment Complex General Biological Assessment, Jurisdictional Determination and Consistency Analysis Report, prepared by Natural Resources Assessment, Inc., December 8, 2023, pages 8 – 10 (Appendix H).

20.B.

(Lactuca serriola) slender wild oats (Avena barbata), mouse barley (Hordeum murinum), and mare's tail (Erigeron canadensis), based on the weedy species mix, the property is an annual non-native grassland (Upper Mustards or Star-thistle Fields, Sawyer et. al 2008).

Other plants observed included ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) and mouse barley (Hordeum murinum). Native and non-native herbaceous weeds observed included telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), and mallow (Malva parviflora). Appendix B of the Biological Assessment (Appendix H) provides a list of all observed plant and wildlife species. No candidate, sensitive, or special status species are present or expected to be present on-site, and no habitat for those species exists. No Criteria Area Plant Species were identified as potentially present for the two parcels making up the project site, as referenced in Appendix H, Table 1, Sensitive Biological Resources.

Observations of wildlife by the NRAI team included individual animals and signs (burrows, scat, feathers, droppings, tracks, etc.) across the property. The survey area included the entire property and wildlife observed in the vicinity of the project site.

No amphibian or reptile species were observed. Bird species observed include Rock Pigeon (Columba livia), House Finch (Haemorhous neomexicanus), and Lesser Goldfinch (Spinus psaltria). The field team observed no sign of mammal species except for domestic dog (Canis domesticus). Appendix B of the Biological Assessment (Appendix H) provides a list of all observed plant and wildlife species. No candidate, sensitive, or special status species are present or expected to be present on-site. No amphibian, reptile, or mammal were identified as potentially present for the two parcels making up the project site, as referenced in Appendix H, Table 1, Sensitive Biological Resources.

The property is within the survey area for the burrowing owl. The NRAI team found no owls, owl signs, or other indicators of burrowing owl use. No burrows belonging to the Beechey ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) are on site. No other structures were observed, such as standpipes, open pipes, or cement pads with openings under them that burrowing owls could use. Most of the available habitat is highly disturbed.

Overall, no plant and animal species of candidate, sensitive, or special status species were found on the site, except for migratory birds, as noted in IV d) below. Based on NRAI’s survey, it was determined that the project would have a less than significant impact, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. b) No impact. The site is relatively flat. There are no channels, flow lines, or other evidence of confined flow. There are no jurisdictional waters and habitats as defined by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the State Water Resources Control Board regulations.

The site does not contain suitable habitat to support the Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, or Yellow-billed Cuckoo. No plants are classified as riparian on site,

20.B.

and no suitable trees, shrubs, or other covers to support those species are on the site.

There are no drainages or riparian habitats on the property. No vernal pools or indications of vernal pools, such as flat, unvegetated areas showing evidence of previous ponding, no patterns of inundation, or distinct water-dependent plant species, are located on the site.

The soils are fine loamy sands or fine sandy loams and are unsuitable for forming longterm ponds that will last a minimum of two months. There are no other sources of standing water, such as cattle ponds or watering holes or evidence of ponding, which would provide suitable habitat for the Riverside fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, or Santa Rosa fairy shrimp. No impacts to these species are expected.

Therefore, the project will have no impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural Community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. c) No impact. The project site is a disturbed area and does not have any state or federallyprotected wetlands. Therefore, the project will have no impact on state or federallyprotected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.28 d) Less than significant impact with mitigation. There is extremely limited nesting habitat on the property. The disking/grading of the site has removed any shrub cover and disrupted ground-nesting attempts for all ground-nesting bird species. There is almost no good nesting habitat elsewhere on the property. The regular disking/grading of the two parcels has removed any shrub cover and would disrupt ground-nesting attempts. As stated above, the site has no wetlands or jurisdictional waters and thus would not interfere with native resident or migratory fish. However, landscape trees along the eastern boundary just outside the property boundary provide nesting habitat for migratory birds. NRAI recommends mitigation measure MM BIO-1 to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds.

Therefore, there is a less than significant impact with mitigation on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impediment of the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e) No impact. The site does not have any trees located directly on it. Also, the property is in a developing area with existing residences to the north, east, and south and is surrounded by roadways. Due to disking over the decades, the site does not contain trees or other biological species or features, and therefore, no impact will occur directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
f) Less than significant impact. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the San Jacinto Valley Area Plan Unit of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKRHCP). 28 Ibid.

20.B.

The property is not within a Criteria Cell and is not needed for acquisition. There are no off-site areas required for this project. The project is consistent with MSHCP Section

3.3.13 evaluation, findings, and recommendations. As noted above, the site does not have any riparian/riverine or vernal pool areas. As well, no criteria plant species, as noted in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP, were found on the property, nor did the property support habitat for the Burrowing Owl. The property is not considered to be wildlands, and measures to protect it are not required. The project proponent will implement standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the development.

The project site is not within or adjacent to an MSHCP-designated Conservation Area or an SKRHCP Core Reserve, so no additional mitigation measures or provisions are required. The project will not conflict with policies or ordinances that protect biological species, habitat conservation plans, or natural community conservation plans.

Furthermore, the project will be conditioned to pay the MSHCP Development Mitigation Fee, which will mitigate potential impacts to covered species by supplementing the financing of the acquisition of lands supporting species covered by the MSHCP, assisting in the maintenance of biological diversity and protecting vegetation communities which are known to support threatened, endangered, or sensitive populations of plant and wildlife species.

As well as the SKR fee is also required to be paid which supplements the financing of Core Reserve management for the SKRHCP.

Based on the above, the project will have a less than significant impact, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively, on an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Mitigation:

MM BIO-1: The Permittee/Owner shall engage a qualified biologist to conduct a breeding survey for migratory birds no more than three days prior to the start of construction to determine if nesting is occurring. The term “construction” shall include all the following: selection of staging areas, demolition, tree, trash, and debris removal, placement of equipment and machinery on to the property preparatory to grading, and any other project-related activity that increases noise and human activity on the project site beyond existing levels. Emergency measures are exempt from this definition.
• If occupied nests are found, they shall not be disturbed unless the qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that either (a) the adult birds have not begun egglaying and incubation or (b) the juveniles from the occupied nests are capable of independent survival.
• If the qualified biologist cannot verify one of the above conditions, then no disturbance shall occur within a distance specified by the qualified biologist for each nest or nesting site. The qualified biologist will determine the appropriate distance in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

20.B.

Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formally
dedicated cemeteries?
Comments:

This analysis incorporates by reference the Cultural Resources Study for the Aster Apartments Project (Cultural Resources Study), prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, September 22, 2023 revised April 1, 2024 (Appendix I). The purpose of the Cultural Resources Study was to locate and record any cultural resources present within the project site and evaluate their significance under CEQA.

The Cultural Resources Study included the review of an archaeological records search performed at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside (UCR), supplemented by records held at BFSA, to assess previous archaeological studies and identify any previously recorded archaeological sites within the site or immediate vicinity. The records search did not identify any previously recorded resources within the project site; however, seven resources are recorded within one mile of the site. BFSA also requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). This request is not part of any Assembly Bill 52 Native American consultation. The SLF search results were negative for recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the project vicinity.

An intensive site survey was also conducted on August 25, 2023. The survey did not identify any cultural resources within the site's boundaries. In addition, the site was not observed to contain any natural sources of water or bedrock outcroppings often associated with prehistoric sites in the area. Aerial photographs and historic maps indicate that the property has never been developed or utilized previously as anything other than an agricultural field. a) No impact. As defined by CEQA, no historic resources are present within the project area, and project implementation will not cause an adverse change to a historical resource.29 Therefore, the project will have no impact or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. 29 Cultural Resources Study for the Aster Apartments Project, prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, September 22, 2023, Revised April 1, 2024, page 4.0-1 (Appendix I).

20.B.

b) Less than significant impact with mitigation. Given that no archaeological sites, features, or artifacts were identified during the survey, no potential impacts to cultural resources are anticipated with the approval of the proposed development. BFSA records also include a monitoring report submitted to the EIC in 2022 for a 64.92-acre project adjacent to the Aster Apartments project (Smith 2022), which did not identify any cultural resources.30 Though no significant archeological resources are known to be present on the site, implementing Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 are required to mitigate impacts to archeological/cultural resources, which can be inadvertently discovered during the course of ground disturbing activity. Through the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to archeological resources on a direct, indirect, or cumulative basis as a result of the project can be reduced to a less than significant level.

Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact with mitigation on causing a substantial adverse change on a significant archaeological resource.

Mitigation:

MM CR-1: Prior to ground disturbing activity, the applicant shall retain the services of a registered professional archaeologist (RPA), to conduct archaeological 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.

MM CR-2: A Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP), shall be developed by the Project Archaeologist and the contractor, in coordination with the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, and City, to thoroughly describe how the project mitigation measures and conditions of approval will be implemented during the course of project related ground disturbing activities. The CRMP will be subject to the approval of the City prior to the issuance of the grading permit. Details in the Plan shall include:
a. Appropriate measures for avoidance and preservation of cultural resources as determined necessary
b. The protocols and stipulations to be followed in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that may be subject to a cultural resource evaluation. c. Treatment of inadvertent discoveries limited to basic recordation and non-destructive analysis.
d. Pre-grading meeting with the City, the construction manager and any contractors, including but limited to a mandatory Workers Environmental Awareness 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 30 Cultural Resources Study for the Aster Apartments Project, prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, September 22, 2023, revised April 1, 2024, page 4.0-1 (Appendix I).

20.B.

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.
c) Less than significant impact with mitigation. No cemeteries or human remains are known to occur on-site. The requirements of Public Resources Code §5097.98 and Health and Safety Code §7050.5 shall be applied as per mitigation measure MM TR-3 found under Section XVIII – Tribal Cultural Resources. The mitigation measure was developed through the AB 52 Tribal Consultation process, which took place with four Native American tribes and the City. The project will have a less than significant impact with mitigation on human remains.

Mitigation:

MM TR-3: 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 at the project site 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 regulations relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC to determine the most likely descendant(s). 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.

Issues:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?

20.B.

Comments:

The Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study (Energy Impact Study), prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3 , 2024 (Appendix G), determined the project would not potentially cause a significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. a) Less than significant impact.

Information from the CalEEMod 2022.1.1.21 Daily and Annual Outputs contained in the Energy Impact Study (Appendix G) was utilized for this analysis. The CalEEMod outputs detail project-related construction equipment, transportation, and facility energy demands.

Construction Energy Demand
Construction Equipment Electricity Usage Estimates
Electrical service will be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). Based on the 2017 National Construction Estimator, Richard Pray (2017)31 , the typical monthly power cost per 1,000 square feet of building construction is estimated to be $2.32. The project plans to develop the site with 276,480 square feet of new residential space over the course of approximately 18 months. Based on Table 9 – Project Construction Power Cost and Electricity Usage, the total power cost of the on-site electricity usage during the proposed project's construction is estimated to be approximately $11,545.80. As shown in Table 9, the total electricity usage from project construction-related activities is estimated to be approximately 209,924 kWh. 32 33
Project Construction Power Cost and Electricity Usage
Power Cost (per 1,000 square
foot of building per month of
construction)
Total Building
Size (1,000
Square Foot)1
Construction
Duration
(months)
Total Project
Construction
Power Cost
$2.32 276.480 18 $11,545.80
Cost per kWh
Total Project Construction Electricity
Usage (kWh)
$0.06 209,924
* Assumes the project will be under the GS-1 General Service rate under SCE.

Table 9 Project Construction Power and Electricity Usage (see Table 19 of Appendix G) Construction Equipment Fuel Estimates
Using the CalEEMod data input, the project’s construction phase would consume electricity and fossil fuels as a single energy demand. That is, once construction is 31 Pray, Richard. 2017 National Construction Estimator. Carlsbad: Craftsman Book Company, 2017. 32 LADWP’s Small Commercial & Multi-Family Service (A-1) is approximately $0.06 per kWh of electricity Southern California Edison (SCE). Rates & Pricing Choices: General Service/Industrial Rates. https://library.sce.com/content/dam/scedoclib/public/regulatory/historical/electric/2020/schedules/general-service-&-industrial-rates/ELECTRIC_SCHEDULES_GS1_2020.pdf 33 Aster Apartment Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, page 62 (Appendix G).

20.B.

completed, their use will cease. CARB’s 2017 Emissions Factors Tables show that, on average, aggregate fuel consumption (gasoline and diesel fuel) would be approximately

18.5 hp-hr-gal. 34 Table 10 – Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates below shows that project construction activities would consume an estimated 46,260 gallons of diesel fuel.35
Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates
Phase
Number
of Days
Offroad Equipment
Type Amount
Usage
Hours
Horse
Power
Load
Factor
HP
hrs/
day
Total Fuel
Consumption
(gal diesel
fuel)1
Site
Preparation
15 Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 367 0.4 2,349 1,904
15 Earthmover/Tractors/
Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37 746 605
Grading
30 Excavators 2 8 36 0.38 219 355
30 Graders 1 8 148 0.41 485 787
30 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 1,174 1,904
30 Scrapers 2 8 423 0.48 3,249 5,268
30 Earthmover/Tractors/
Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.37 497 806
Building
Construction
300 Cranes 1 7 367 0.29 745 12,081
300 Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2 394 6,383
300 Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 83 1,344
300 Earthmover/Tractors/
Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 84 0.37 653 10,584
300 Welders 1 8 46 0.45 166 2,685
Paving
20 Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 544 588
20 Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 513 554
20 Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 219 237
Architectural
Coating 30 Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48 107 173
CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (gallons of diesel fuel) 46,260 Notes:
1 Using Carl Moyer Guidelines Table D-21 Fuel consumption rate factors (bhp-hr/gal) for engines less than 750 hp. (Source: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf) Table 10 Construction Equipment Fuel Consumption Estimates (see Table 20 of Appendix G) Construction Worker Fuel Estimates
All construction worker trips are assumed to be from light-duty autos (LDA) along area roadways. With respect to estimated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), the construction worker trips would generate an estimated 1,192,001 VMT. Vehicle fuel efficiencies for construction workers were estimated in the air quality and greenhouse gas analysis using information generated using CARB’s EMFAC model (see Appendix B of the Energy Impact Study [Appendix G] for details). Table 11 – Construction Worker Fuel 34 Aggregate fuel consumption rate for all equipment was estimated at 18.5 hp-hr/day (from CARB’s 2017 Emissions Factors Tables and fuel consumption rate factors as shown in Table D-21 of the Moyer Guidelines:
(https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_gl_appendix_d.pdf). 35 Aster Apartment Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, pages 62 – 63 (Appendix G).

20.B.

Consumption Estimates show that an estimated 38,503 gallons of fuel would be consumed for construction worker trips.36
Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates
Phase
Number of
Days
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Site Preparation 15 12.5 18.5 3,469 30.95 112
Grading 30 20.0 18.5 11,100 31.95 347
Building Construction 300 207.0 18.5 1,148,850 30.95 37,120 Paving 20 15.0 18.5 5,550 30.95 179
Architectural Coating 30 41.5 18.5 23,033 30.95 744
Total Construction Worker Fuel Consumption 38,503
Notes:
1 Assumptions for the worker trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.21 defaults.

Table 11 Construction Worker Fuel Consumption Estimates (see Table 21 of Appendix G) Construction Vendor/Hauling Fuel Estimates
Table 12 – Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD Trucks) and Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks) (combined in Table 12 below) from Appendix G show the estimated fuel consumption for vendor and hauling during building construction and architectural coating. With respect to the estimated VMT, the vendor and hauling trips would generate an estimated 107,268 VMT. For the architectural coatings, it is assumed that the contractors would be responsible for bringing coatings and equipment with them in their light-duty vehicles.37 The table shows that an estimated 12,113 gallons of fuel would be consumed for vendor and hauling trips.38
Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD Trucks)1 Phase Number of Days
Vendor
Trips/Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Site Preparation 15 0 10.2 0 9.22 0
Grading 30 0 10.2 0 9.22 0
Building Construction 300 30.8 10.2 94,248 9.22 10,222
Paving 20 5.0 10.2 1,020 9.22 111
Architectural Coating 30 0 10.2 0 9.22 0
Total Vendor Fuel Consumption 10,333
Notes:
1 Assumptions for the vendor trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.21 defaults.

Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks)1 36 Aster Apartment Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, pages 63 – 64 (Appendix G). 37 Vendors delivering construction material or hauling debris from the site during grading would use medium to heavy duty vehicles with an average fuel consumption of 9.22 mpg for medium heavy-duty trucks and 6.74 mpg for heavy heavy-duty trucks (see Appendix B of the Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study for details). 38 Aster Apartment Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, page 64 (Appendix G).

20.B.

Phase Number of Days
Hauling
Trips/Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
Average
Vehicle
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Estimated
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Site Preparation 15 0 20 0 6.74 0
Grading 30 20.0 20 12,000 6.74 1,780
Building Construction 300 0 20 0 6.74 0
Paving 20 0 20 0 6.74 0
Architectural Coating 30 0 20 0 6.74 0
Total Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption 1,780
Notes:
1 Assumptions for the hauling trip length and vehicle miles traveled are consistent with CalEEMod 2022.1.1.21 defaults.

Table 12 Construction Vendor Fuel Consumption Estimates (MHD Trucks) and Construction Hauling Fuel Consumption Estimates (HHD Trucks) (see Tables 22 and 23 of Appendix G) Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures
Construction equipment used over the approximately 18-month construction phase would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards and is evidence of related fuel efficiencies. In addition, the CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure limits the idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby minimizing unnecessary and wasteful fuel consumption due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Furthermore, the project has been designed in compliance with California’s Energy Efficiency Standards and 2022 CALGreen Standards.

Construction of the proposed residential development would require the typical use of energy resources. There are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Therefore, equipment employed in the project's construction would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption.39
Operation Energy Demand
Energy consumption in support of or related to project operations would include transportation energy demands (energy consumed by employee and patron vehicles accessing the project site) and facilities energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities).

Transportation Fuel Consumption
The largest source of operational energy use would be the vehicle operation of customers. The site is in an urbanized area, just in close proximity to transit stops. Using the CalEEMod output, it is assumed that an average trip length would be 6.9 miles. To show a worst-case analysis, as the proposed project is a residential project, it was 39 Aster Apartment Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, page 65 (Appendix G).

20.B.

assumed that vehicles would operate 365 days per year. Table 13 – Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption shows the worst-case estimated annual fuel consumption for all classes of vehicles, from autos to heavy-heavy trucks. 40 The table shows that an estimated 209,666 gallons of fuel would be consumed per year for the operation of the proposed project.

Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption1
Vehicle Type Vehicle Mix
Number
of
Vehicles
Average
Trip
(miles)2
Daily
VMT
Average
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Total
Gallons
per Day
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Light Auto Automobile 250.6 6.9 1,729 31.82 54.33 19,831 Light Truck Automobile 43.8 6.9 302 27.16 11.13 4,062
Light Truck Automobile 134.9 6.9 931 25.6 36.37 13,275
Medium Truck Automobile 107.8 6.9 744 20.81 35.76 13,051 Light Heavy Truck 2-Axle Truck 20.2 6.9 139 13.81 10.09 3,681 Light Heavy Truck 10,000 lbs + 2-Axle Truck 113.3 6.9 781 14.18 55.11 20,114 Medium Heavy Truck 3-Axle Truck 8.9 6.9 62 9.58 6.42 2,345 Heavy Heavy Truck 4-Axle Truck 75.5 6.9 521 7.14 72.96 26,631 Total 1,537 -- 10,605 -- 574.43 --
Total Annual Fuel Consumption 209,666
Notes:
'1 The project is to generate 1,537 total net new trips after the reduction of existing uses. Default CalEEMod vehicle fleet mix utilized. 2 Based on the size of the site and relative location, trips were assumed to be local rather than regional.

Table 13 Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption (see Table 24 of Appendix G) Trip generation generated by the proposed project is consistent with similar residential uses of scale and configuration, as reflected in the traffic data. The proposed project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips or associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption.

Therefore, project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.41
Facility Energy Demands (Electricity and Natural Gas)
The annual natural gas and electricity demands were provided per the CalEEMod output and are provided in Table 14 – Project Unmitigated Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary.

Project Unmitigated Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary1 Natural Gas Demand kBTU/year
Apartments High Rise 3,713,130
Total 3,713,130
Electricity Demand kWh/year
Apartments High Rise 1,629,838
Parking Lot 207,010
Total 1,836,848
Notes:
1 Taken from the CalEEMod 2022.1.1.21 annual output.

Table 14 Project Unmitigated Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary (see Table 25 of Appendix G) 40 Average fuel economy based on aggregate mileage calculated in EMFAC 2017 for opening year (2023). See Appendix B of the Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study (Appendix G) for EMFAC output. 41 Aster Apartment Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, page 66 (Appendix G).

20.B.

As shown in Table 14, the estimated electricity demand for the proposed project is approximately 1,836,848 kWh per year. In 2022, the residential sector of the County of Riverside consumed approximately 9,061 million kWh of electricity. 42 In addition, the estimated natural gas consumption for the proposed project is approximately 3,713,130 kBTU per year. In 2022, the residential sector of the County of Riverside consumed approximately 284 million therms of gas. 43 Therefore, the increase in electricity and natural gas demand from the proposed project is insignificant compared to the County’s 2022 demand.44 Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact. b) No impact.

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plan Consistency The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) promoted the development of inter‐modal transportation systems to maximize mobility as well as address national and local interests in air quality and energy. Regarding federal transportation regulations, the project site is located in an already developed area.

Access to/from the project site is from existing roads. These roads are already in place, so the project would not interfere with nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be proposed pursuant to the ISTEA because the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is not planning for intermodal facilities in the project area.

The California Energy Commission (CEC) is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. For consistency with the State’s Energy Plan and with Title 24 CCR energy efficiency standards, the applicant must comply with the California Green Building Standard Code requirements for energy-efficient buildings and appliances and utility energy efficiency programs implemented by the Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company.

Regarding the State’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards, the project would be required to meet or exceed the energy standards established in the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen). CalGreen Standards require that new buildings reduce water consumption, employ building commissioning to increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting finish materials. Compliance with these standards and requirements is mandatory and is assured through a standard City plan check prior to the issuance of building permits.

Site Conditions for Renewable Energy Sources
On-site renewable energy sources have been considered. Geothermal energy, the use of heat naturally present in shallow soil or in groundwater or rock to provide building heating/cooling and to heat water, requires the installation of a heat exchanger consisting of a network of below-ground pipes to convey heated or cooled air to a building. The 42 California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx 43 California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx 44 Aster Apartment Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, page 67 (Appendix G).

20.B.

presence of natural-occurring methane and hydrogen sulfide gases in the soil beneath the project site and the project area, associated with underlying and nearby oil and gas fields, requires the implementation of a Gas Mitigation and Monitoring System to ensure subsurface gases do not pose a significant health or safety risk and makes the construction and operation of a heat exchanger for project buildings infeasible.

Installation of a heat exchanger would also require additional excavation compared to the project, which could increase impacts on paleontological resources.

Although methane is a renewable derived biogas, it is not available on the project site in commercially viable quantities or form (i.e., a form that could be used without further treatment), and its extraction and treatment for energy purposes would result in secondary impacts.

Wind power represents variable-energy, or intermittent, resources that are generally used to augment, but not replace, natural gas-fired energy power generation since reliability of energy availability and transmission is necessary to meet demand, which is constant.

Concerning other on-site renewable energy sources, because of the project’s location, there are no local sources of energy from the following sources: biodiesel, biomass hydroelectric and small hydro, digester gas, fuel cells, landfill gas, municipal solid waste, ocean thermal, ocean wave, and tidal current technologies, or multi-fuel facilities using renewable fuels.

Future Renewable Energy Usage
The project is to be built with rooftop solar panels, which will reduce the project's overall external energy demand.45
Conclusion
Based on the above, the project will not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As such, no impact will occur.

Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.

Issues:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the
project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
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
45 Aster Apartment Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, pages 68 -- 69 (Appendix G).

20.B.

Issues:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off­site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Comments:

The Geotechnical Exploration Report Proposed River Oaks Ranch Project Multi-Family Residential Development West Stetson Avenue and South Elk Street Hemet, California (Geotechnical Exploration Report), prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., April 10, 2024 and Addendum Report #1, dated August 16, 2024 (Appendix J), found no soil or geologic conditions that would preclude the development of the property as presently proposed, provided that the recommendations of the report are followed. a)
i) Less than significant impact. The California Geological Survey establishes regulatory zones, called Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, surrounding the surface trace of active faults in California. These zones identify areas where a potential surface fault rupture could prove hazardous for buildings used for human occupancy. For the purposes of the Alquist-Priolo Act, an “active” fault is one that has ruptured in the last 11,000 years (or a Holocene-active fault).

20.B.

Reviewing the General Plan 2030 Figure 6.1 – Seismic Hazards46 and the California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (EQ Zapp)47 shows the site is not in an Alquist Priolo Fault Zone or near an active fault with a surface trace. The nearest earthquake faults are the Clark and Casa Loma Faults (San Jacinto Fault Zone segments), located approximately 0.5 miles from the project site. In addition, the project would not involve mining operations or deep excavation that could create unstable seismic conditions or stresses in the Earth’s crust. Accordingly, the project would not exacerbate existing fault rupture conditions. Therefore, the potential hazards associated with fault rupture are considered less than significant, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively. ii) Less than significant impact. Common throughout most of Southern California is a potential for strong ground shaking generated by moderate to severe earthquakes.

The intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon earthquake magnitude, site distance from the source, and site response (soil type) characteristics. However, this hazard is common in Southern California and the effects of ground shaking can be mitigated if the proposed structures are designed and constructed in conformance with current building codes and engineering practices.

State and local code requirements ensure that buildings are designed and constructed in a manner that, although the buildings may sustain damage during a major earthquake, would reduce the substantial risk that buildings would collapse. To protect buildings in the event of an earthquake, the State and City mandate compliance with numerous rules related to seismic safety, including the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Seismic Safety Act, Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, the City’s General Plan Safety Element, and the Hemet Building Code. Pursuant to those laws, the project must demonstrate compliance with the applicable provisions of these safety requirements before permits can be issued for construction.

Historically, the San Jacinto Fault Zone (SJFZ) has produced earthquakes in the magnitude range of 6.0Mw to 7.6Mw (Moment magnitude). In roughly the last 100 years (1903 through 2020), 9 major quakes in the range of 6.0Mw to 7.6Mw have occurred within a 50-mile radius of the subject site. Each of these large quakes has produced moderate to severe damage to buildings and roads, and several have resulted in fatalities (USGS, 1971). The frequency and relatively short recurrence interval of surface rupture for the SJFZ has resulted in many events during Holocene time with at least 16 documented in the past 3,700 years (Onderdonk et al., 2018).

Common throughout most of Southern California is a potential for strong ground shaking generated by moderate to severe earthquakes. The intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon earthquake magnitude, site distance from the source, and site response (soil type) characteristics.48 The intensity of ground shaking generated by moderate to severe earthquakes. shaking at a given location depends primarily upon earthquake magnitude, site distance from the source, and site response (soil type) characteristics. Seismic coefficients for the 46 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan, adopted January 24, 2012, Chapter 6 – Public Safety Element – Figure 6.1 – Seismic Hazards, page 6-7. 47 California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (EQ Zapp), Accessed March 7, 2024, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. 48 Geotechnical Exploration Report Proposed River Oaks Ranch Project Multi-Family Residential Development West Stetson Avenue and Elk Street Hemet, California, prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., April 10, 2024, page 7 (Appendix J).

20.B.

subject site were calculated utilizing an interactive program on the current United States Geological Survey (USGS) website using ASCE 7-16 procedures. Based on the results of seismic profiling, the soil sediments underlying the site are classified as Site Class D. As such, the site-specific seismic coefficients are listed in Table 15.

Copies of seismic analysis data are included in Appendix J (Appendix D, Seismic Design Data and Analysis of the Report).

Table 15 2019 Uniform Building Code – Based Seismic Design Parameters (Table 3 of Appendix J) The project will be designed to resist seismic impacts in accordance with the applicable Municipal Code Chapter 14 – Buildings and Building Regulations standards as outlined in the Geotechnical Exploration Report (Appendix J). Such building code compliance is required to develop all structures in the City. The project plans will be reviewed during the plan check process to confirm seismic safety measures are incorporated. Moreover, nothing unique about the project site would require additional measures beyond compliance with the adopted building code.

Therefore, potential impacts associated with seismic ground shaking will be less than significant, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively. iii) Less than significant impact. Reviewing the General Plan 2030 Figure 6.1 – Seismic Hazards49, the project site is located in an area of moderate liquefaction susceptibility. Per the Geotechnical Exploration Report (Appendix J), given an absence of groundwater encountered beneath the site at or above a depth of 51.5 feet below the ground surface (bgs), the potential constraint to the proposed development due to liquefaction and related seismic-induced settlement is considered very low.
49 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan, adopted January 24, 2012, Chapter 6 – Public Safety Element – Figure 6.1 – Seismic Hazards, page 6-7.

20.B.

Implementing existing state and local laws and regulations concerning soil liquefaction and ground failure is required for all projects in the City. Compliance with such laws and regulations is ensured as a routine part of the City’s standard plan check prior to the issuance of grading permits. Therefore, impacts related to liquefaction and ground failure would be less than significant, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
iv) Less than significant impact. The site is relatively flat in topographic relief and not designated on County of Riverside hazard maps as occurring within a landslide hazard zone. No slopes or other elevated areas of any significance exist on or adjacent to the property, which could be a potential source of landslides. Based on the above, the potential for slope instability or seismically induced landslides is considered negligible. Therefore, impacts related to landsliding and slope failure would be less than significant, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively. b) Less than significant impact. Project construction would be subject to local and state codes and erosion control and grading requirements. Because construction activities would disturb one or more acres, the project must adhere to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit provisions.

Construction activities subject to this permit include clearing, grading, and other soil disturbances, such as stockpiling and excavating. The NPDES Construction General Permit requires implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevent Plan (SWPPP), including temporary project construction features (i.e., BMPs) designed to prevent erosion and protect the quality of stormwater runoff. Sediment-control BMPs may include stabilized construction entrances, straw wattles on earthen embankments, sediment filters on existing inlets, or the equivalent.

In addition, grading activities would be required to conform to the most current version of the California Building Code, the City Code (including the Grading and Erosion Control Standards)50, the approved grading plans, and BMP’s engineering practices. The project must also comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules 402 and 403 (Fugitive Dust).51 Compliance with these federal, regional, and local requirements would reduce the potential for both on-site and off-site erosion effects to accepted levels during project construction.

Upon completion of construction activities, ground surfaces would be stabilized by project structures, paving, and landscaping. Therefore, impacts associated with soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would be less than significant, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
50 City of Hemet Grading and Erosion Control Standards, Resolution No. 4537, Adopted June 11, 2013, https://www.hemetca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2102/Grading-Standards-Final?bidId=. 51 Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gase, and Energy Impact study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, page 6 (Appendix G).

20.B.

c) Less than significant impact.

Landslides
A landslide is the movement of surface material down a slope. As noted in Section VII a) iv) above, impacts related to landsliding and slope failure would be less than significant, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, through compliance with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Exploration Report and the California Building Code.

The Geotechnical Exploration Report concluded that the site is considered suitable from a geotechnical engineering perspective, provided the recommendations therein are properly incorporated into the final project design and construction. Incorporation of the site- and project-specific recommendations of the Geotechnical Exploration Report would be ensured by the City during plan check prior to the issuance of a grading permit.

Implementation of the recommendations of the Report, would be ensured through field inspections, as required by the City’s Grading and Erosion Control Standards.

Lateral Spreading
Lateral spread refers to landslides that commonly form on gentle slopes with rapid fluidlike flow movement, like water. As the site has a very low liquefaction potential and is relatively constrained laterally, the potential for earthquake-induced lateral spreading at the site is considered negligible, and lateral spreading risks are less than significant, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.

Subsidence
Subsidence is the sinking of the land surface. Evidence of subsidence includes ground cracking and damage to roadways, aqueducts, and structures. Subsidence caused by excessive groundwater pumping is a common occurrence in areas of California where groundwater is pumped for agricultural and municipal wells. According to the Geotechnical Exploration Report, no evidence of historical subsidence is notable and the potential for subsidence hazard at the site is low. In addition, the Project would not require and does not propose the direct withdraw or extraction of subsurface materials, the removal of which could cause subsidence. Some shrinkage and subsidence are expected during the project grading activities as the pad is prepared for the project.

However, standard grading and site preparation practices, such as moisture-conditioning and recompaction, are utilized during construction to address soil shrinkage. The Geotechnical Exploration Report (Appendix J) contains such site- and project-specific recommendations for grading that would be incorporated into the project’s grading plans.

Standard City plan check prior to the issuance of grading permits and inspections required by the City’s Grading and Erosion Control Standards will ensure that the project development meets all City Code requirements. Therefore, the subsidence effect will be less than significant, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.

20.B.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction is when strong earthquake shaking causes sediment layers saturated with groundwater to lose strength and behave as a fluid. This sub-surface process can lead to near-surface or surface ground failure, resulting in property damage and structural failure. If surface ground failure does occur, it is usually expressed as lateral spreading, flow failures, ground oscillation, and/or general loss of bearing strength. Sand boils (injections of fluidized sediment) can commonly accompany these different types of failure.

As noted in Response VII a) iii) above, General Plan 2030 Figure 6.1 – Seismic Hazards52 indicates that the property has a moderate liquefaction potential. Still, given an absence of groundwater encountered beneath the site at or above a depth of 50 feet bgs, the potential constraint to the proposed development due to liquefaction and related seismic-induced settlement is considered very low. The project will have a less than significant impact related to liquefaction.

Collapsible Soils
Collapsible Soils are low-density, silty to very fine-grained, predominantly granular soils containing minute pores and voids. When saturated, these soils undergo a rearrangement of their grains and a loss of cementation, causing substantial, rapid settlement under even relatively light loads. A rise in the groundwater table or an increase in surface water infiltration, combined with the weight of a building or structure, can cause rapid settlement and consequent cracking of foundations and walls. Collapsible soils generally result from rapid deposition close to the source of the sediment where the materials have not been sufficiently moistened to form a compact soil.

Soils encountered at the site are underlain by Young Alluvial Fan Deposits of Bautista Canyon – (Holocene to late Pleistocene) and Ole Alluvial Fan Deposits (late to middle Pleistocene). These soils generally have a moderate density consisting of sand and gravel, making them less susceptible to collapse than soil with lower density. Soil collapse is typically addressed during grading techniques involving the removal of identified collapsible subsurface materials and compaction of materials underlying building foundations to compaction standards compatible with the anticipated loads of proposed structures. The project’s Geotechnical Exploration Report recommends overexcavation and recompaction of the upper eight feet of soil or a minimum of seven feet below foundations (not to exceed 10 feet bgs) as part of remedial grading, and states that deeper removals may be required locally depending upon final grading and/or foundation design. The Geotechnical Exploration Report concluded that the site is considered suitable from a geotechnical engineering perspective provided the recommendations therein are properly incorporated into the final project design and construction. Incorporation of the site- and project-specific recommendations of the Geotechnical Exploration Report would be ensured by the City during plan check prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Implementation of the recommended removals and recompaction would be ensured. The potential need for additional deeper removals 52 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan, adopted January 24, 2012, Chapter 6 – Public Safety Element – Figure 6.1 – Seismic Hazards, page 6-7.

20.B.

would be determined through field inspections and density testing of final grades, as required by the City’s Grading and Erosion Control Standards. Adherence to the recommendations for grading and foundation design contained within the Geotechnical Exploration Report (Appendix J), as ensured through standard plan check and field inspections, will ensure that the project site meets all City Code requirements and the effect of the project with regard to collapsible soils will be less than significant, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
d) Less than significant impact.

Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or swell as the moisture content changes; the shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Arid or semi-arid areas with seasonal soil moisture changes experience a much higher frequency of problems from expansive soils than areas with higher rainfall and more constant soil moisture.

Table 16 shows Table 18-1 -B of the Uniform Building Code, which reads as follows:

TABLE 18-1-B – CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOILS

EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION
0 – 20 Very Low
21 – 50 Low
51 – 90 Medium
91 – 130 High
Above 130 Very High
Table 16 Uniform Building Code Table 18-1
The site’s near-surface soils consist of silty sand sandy silts of low plasticity. They are expected to possess low expansion potential (Expansion Index<51) and are suitable for use as compacted fill (Appendix J, page 4). Furthermore, the recommendations for site preparation contained within the project’s Geotechnical Exploration Report would reduce the expansion potential of supporting soils beneath the proposed building. Specifically, the Geotechnical Exploration Report recommends mixing of any soils of poor quality, such as those of high expansion potential, with other suitable soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. As discussed above, the Geotechnical Exploration Report concluded that the site is considered suitable from a geotechnical engineering perspective provided the recommendations therein are properly incorporated into the final project design and construction. Implementation of all recommendations of the Geotechnical Exploration Report is required by the City Engineering Department’s Grading and Erosion Control Standards and would be ensured through the City’s review and approval of Project grading plans prior to the issuance of construction and grading permits and through field inspections of final grades.

By adhering to state and local grading and building regulations as ensured through standard City plan check and field inspections, the impacts of expansive soils will be less than significant directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. e) No impact. The project would connect to the existing sewer infrastructure provided by the City of Hemet (see Checklist Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, of this IS/MND). Therefore, the project would have no impact on septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

20.B.

f) Less than significant impact with mitigation. The Paleontological Assessment for the Aster Apartments Project, prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, on September 22, 2023 (Appendix K), found that with the implementation of mitigation measures, projectrelated impacts on paleontological resources will be reduced to a level that is less than significant with mitigation.

As noted on page 9 of Appendix K, the Paleontological Assessment, research has confirmed the existence of the potentially fossiliferous Pleistocene old alluvial deposits that underlie the Holocene deposits at the project site at an unknown depth. The City’s General Plan 2030 Final EIR Exhibit 4.5-1 – Cultural Resource Sensitivity confirms the research.53 The occurrence of terrestrial vertebrate fossils from Pleistocene old alluvial deposits in western Riverside County is well documented. The high paleontological sensitivity rating assigned to this formation for yielding paleontological resources supports the recommendation that paleontological monitoring be implemented during mass grading and excavation activities in these deposits to mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources. Full-time monitoring at the project is warranted, starting at a depth of five feet below the surface in areas mapped as young alluvial valley deposits. Mitigation Measure MM PAL-1 requires a monitoring program for the project and establishes proper protocol in the event of discovery of a paleontological resource at the project site. With the incorporation of MM PAL-1, the project’s impacts on paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation:

MM PAL-1: The Permittee/Owner will ensure a City-qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor supervised by a City-qualified paleontologist is on-site to monitor all mass grading and excavation activities. Starting at a depth of five feet below the surface, monitoring will be conducted full-time in areas of grading or excavation in undisturbed alluvial deposits. • Paleontological monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow the removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface or, if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources.

The monitor shall notify the project paleontologist, who will notify the concerned parties of the discovery.
• Paleontological salvage during trenching and boring activities typically comes from the generated spoils and does not delay the trenching or drilling activities. Fossils will be collected and placed in cardboard flats or plastic buckets and identified by field number, collector, and date collected.

Notes will be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which 53 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Chapter 11 – Cultural Resources – Exhibit 4.5-1 – Cultural Resource Sensitivity, Page 4.5-7.

20.B.

will be photographed before it is vacated and the fossils are moved to a safe place. On mass grading projects, discovered fossil sites are protected by flagging to prevent them from being overrun by earthmovers (scrapers) before salvage begins. Fossils will be collected similarly, with notes and photographs taken before removing the fossils. The site's precise location is determined by using handheld Global Positioning System units. If the site involves remains from a large terrestrial vertebrate, such as large bone(s) or a mammoth tusk, that is/are too large to be easily removed by a single monitor, a fossil recovery crew shall excavate around the find, encase the find within a plaster and burlap jacket, and remove it after the plaster is set. For large fossils, the contractor’s construction equipment may be used to help move the jacket to a safe location. • Isolated fossils will be collected by hand, wrapped in paper, and placed in temporary collecting flats or five-gallon buckets. Notes are taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which is photographed before it is vacated, and the fossils are moved to a safe place.
• Particularly small invertebrate fossils typically represent multiple specimens of a limited number of organisms, and a scientifically suitable sample can be obtained from one to several five-gallon buckets of fossiliferous sediment. If it is possible to dry-screen the sediment in the field, a concentrated sample may consist of one or two buckets of material.

For vertebrate fossils, the test usually involves the observed presence of small pieces of bones within the sediments. If present, multiple five-gallon buckets of sediment can be collected and returned to a separate facility to wet-screen the sediment.
• In accordance with the “Microfossil Salvage” section of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (2010:7), bulk sampling and screening of fine-grained sedimentary deposits (including carbonate-rich paleosols) must be performed if the deposits are identified to possess indications of producing fossil “microvertebrates” to test the feasibility of the deposit to yield fossil bones and teeth.
• In the laboratory, individual fossils will be cleaned of extraneous matrix, any breaks will be repaired, and the specimen, if needed, will be stabilized by soaking in an archivally approved acrylic hardener (e.g., a solution of acetone and Paraloid B-72).
• Recovered specimens will be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation (not display), including screen-washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Preparation of individual vertebrate fossils is often more time-consuming than accumulations of invertebrate fossils.
• Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the Western Science Center) shall be conducted. The paleontological program shall include a written repository agreement before initiating mitigation activities. Prior to curation, the lead agency (the City of Hemet) will be consulted on the repository/museum to receive the fossil material.

20.B.

• A final report of findings and significance will be prepared, including lists of recovered fossils and necessary maps and graphics to record their original location(s) accurately. When submitted to and accepted by the appropriate lead agency, the report will signify satisfactory completion of the project program to mitigate impacts to any potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) that might have been lost or otherwise adversely affected without such a program.

Issues:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emission of greenhouse
gases?
Comments:

The Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study (GHG Impact Study), prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024 (Appendix G), indicates the project will not result in greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly that may have a significant impact on the environment.
a) Less than significant impact.

Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance
CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine if a project would have a significant impact on greenhouse gases, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the project must be evaluated.

The following greenhouse gas significance thresholds are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which were amendments adopted into the Guidelines on March 18, 2010, pursuant to SB 97. A significant impact would occur if the project would:
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
(b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

However, despite this, currently, neither the CEQA statutes, OPR guidelines, nor the draft proposed changes to the CEQA Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or a particular methodology for performing an impact analysis; as with most environmental topics, significance criteria are left to the judgment and discretion of the Lead Agency.

20.B.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has drafted interim thresholds. SCAQMD has published a five-tiered draft GHG threshold, which includes 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year for stationary/industrial sources and 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year significance threshold for residential/commercial projects (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2010c). Tier 3 is anticipated to be the primary tier by which the SCAQMD will determine significance for projects. The Tier 3 screening level for stationary sources is based on an emission capture rate of 90 percent for all new or modified projects. A 90-precent emission capture rate means that 90 percent of total emissions from all new or modified stationary source projects would be subject to CEQA analysis. The 90-percent capture rate GHG significance screening level in Tier 3 for stationary sources was derived using the SCAQMD’s annual Emissions Reporting Program. The screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses was used in this analysis.54
Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact
The greenhouse gas emissions from project construction equipment and worker vehicles are shown in Table 17 – Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The total construction emissions amortized over a period of 30 years are estimated at 32.33 metric tons of CO2e per year. Annual CalEEMod output calculations are provided in Appendix A of the GHG Impact Study (Appendix G).55
Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Activity Emissions (MTCO2e)1
Total
2026 714.00
2027 256.00
Total 970.00
Averaged over 30 years2 32.33
Table 17 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions (see Table 14 of Appendix G) Operational Greenhouse Gas Impact
Operational emissions occur over the life of the project. The operational emissions for the project are 2,180 metric tons of CO2e per year, as shown in Table 18 – Opening Year Unmitigated Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions. These emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year.56 Therefore, the Project's GHG emissions are considered to be less than significant.

Opening Year Unmitigated Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)1
Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O R CO2e
Area Sources2 0.00 4.95 4.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.97
Energy Usage3 0.00 640.00 640.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 642.00
Mobile Sources4 0.00 1,373.00 1,373.00 0.07 0.07 1.95 1,398.00 Solid Waste5 19.00 0.00 19.00 1.90 0.00 0.00 66.50
Water6 3.72 19.50 23.22 0.38 0.01 0.00 35.50
54 Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, page 21 (Appendix G). 55 Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, page 55 (Appendix G). 56 Ibid.

20.B.

Opening Year Unmitigated Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)1
Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O R CO2e
Refrigeration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33
Construction7 0.00 31.90 31.90 0.00 0.00 0.02 32.33
Total Emissions 22.72 2,069.35 2,092.07 2.39 0.08 2.30 2,179.63 SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.21
2 Area sources consist of GHG emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas usage. 4 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles. 5 Solid waste includes the CO2 and CH4 emissions created from the solid waste placed in landfills. 6 Water includes GHG emissions from electricity for transporting water and processing wastewater. 7 Construction GHG emissions based on a 30-year amortization rate.

Table 18 Opening Year Unmitigated Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions (see Table 15 of Appendix G) Therefore, as the project’s total emissions (Construction and Operation) would not exceed the SCAQMD draft Tier 3 industrial threshold of 3,000 MT of CO2e per year, impacts are considered less than significant.
b) Less than significant impact. The proposed project would have the potential to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. An analysis of compliance with these plans is found in the tables below.

Consistency with Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Subregional Climate Action Plan (CAP)
The City of Hemet is participating in the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Subregional Climate Action Plan (CAP). The WRCOG Subregional CAP establishes a community-wide emissions reduction target of 15 percent below 2010, following guidance from CARB and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

CARB and the California Attorney General have determined this approach to be consistent with the state-wide AB 32 goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels.

As shown in Table 19 – Applicable WRCOG Subregional CAP Local Reduction Measure Project Comparison, the project is consistent with applicable local reduction measures identified in the WRCOG Subregional CAP.

Applicable WRCOG Subregional CAP Local Reduction Measure Project Comparison1 WRCOG Local
Reduction Measure Measure Description Project Compliance with Measure E-1: Energy Action Plan
Improve municipal and community
wide energy efficiency and reduce
energy consumption through the
adoption of local Energy Action
Plans (EAP).

Not directly applicable to the project;
however, the project will be compliant with
the current Title 24 standards.

E-3: Shade Trees Strategically plant trees to reduce
the urban heat island effect.

The proposed project is to include trees per
City requirements for new developments.

T-2: Bicycle Parking Provide additional options for bicycle parking.

The proposed project will follow City
requirements for bicycle parking.

20.B.

Applicable WRCOG Subregional CAP Local Reduction Measure Project Comparison1 WRCOG Local
Reduction Measure Measure Description Project Compliance with Measure T-8: Density
Improve jobs-housing balance and
reduce vehicle miles traveled by
increasing household and
employment densities.

The proposed multi-family residential project
is located within 0.25 miles of commercial
uses.

T-10: Design/Site
Planning
Design neighborhoods and sites to
reduce VMT.

The proposed multi-family residential project
is located within 0.25 miles of commercial
uses.

T-14: Voluntary
Transportation Demand
Management
Reduce demand for roadway travel
through incentives for alternative
modes of transportation and
disincentives for driving.

The proposed multi-family residential project
is located within 0.25 miles of commercial
uses.

SW-1: Yard Waste
Collection
Provide green waste collection bins
community-wide.

The project will be required to comply with
City programs, such as the City’s recycling
and waste reduction program, which will
comply with the 75 percent reduction required
by 2020 per AB 341.

SW-2: Food Scrap and
Paper Division
Divert food and paper waste from
landfills by implementing collection
system.

The project will be required to comply with
City programs, such as the City’s recycling
and waste reduction program, which will
comply with the 75 percent reduction required
by 2020 per AB 341. 1 Source: WRCOG Subregional Climate Action Plan (2014).

Table 19 Applicable WRCOG Subregional CAP Local Reduction Measure Project Comparison (see Table 16 of Appendix G)
Consistency with AB 32 Scoping Plan
The Air Resources Board (ARB) approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan in December 2008. The Scoping Plan outlines the State’s strategy to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions limit. The Scoping Plan “proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health” (California Air Resources Board 2008). The measures in the Scoping Plan have been in place since 2012.

This Scoping Plan calls for an “ambitious but achievable” reduction in California’s greenhouse gas emissions, cutting approximately 30 percent from business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020, or about 10 percent from today’s levels. In May 2014, the California ARB (CARB) released its First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB 2014). This Update identifies the next steps for California’s leadership on climate change. In November 2017, the CARB released the 2017 Scoping Plan. This Scoping Plan incorporates, coordinates, and leverages many existing and ongoing efforts, identifies new policies and actions to accomplish the State’s climate goals, and includes a description of a suite of specific actions to meet the State’s 2030 GHG limit. The 2017 Scoping Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update while identifying new, technologically feasible, cost-effective strategies to ensure California meets its GHG reduction targets.

As the latest, the 2022 Scoping Plan builds upon previous versions, project consistency with applicable strategies of both the 2008 and 2017 Plans are assessed in Table 20. As

20.B.

shown in Table 20, the project is consistent with the applicable strategies within the Scoping Plan.

Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures1 2008 Scoping Plan Measures to Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Measure California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Standards – Implement adopted standards and
planned second phase of the program. Align zeroemission vehicle, alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs with long-term climate
change goals.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project that are required to
comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

Energy Efficiency – Maximize energy efficiency
building and appliance standards; pursue additional
efficiency including new technologies, policy, and
implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable
investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California.

Consistent. The project will be compliant with the
current Title 24 standards.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard – Develop and adopt the
Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project that are required to
comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

Vehicle Efficiency Measures – Implement light-duty
vehicle efficiency measures.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project that are required to
comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Adopt medium and
heavy-duty vehicle efficiency measures.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project that are required to
comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

Green Building Strategy – Expand the use of green
building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of
California’s new and existing inventory of buildings.

Consistent. The California Green Building Standards
Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part
of the California Building Standards Code in the CCR.

Part 11 establishes voluntary standards, that are
mandatory in the 2019 edition of the Code, on planning
and design for sustainable site development, energy
efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code
requirements), water conservation, material
conservation, and internal air contaminants. The
project will be subject to these mandatory standards.

High Global Warming Potential Gases – Adopt
measures to reduce high global warming potential
gases.

Consistent. CARB identified five measures that reduce
HFC emissions from vehicular and commercial
refrigeration systems; vehicles that access the project that are required to comply with the measures will
comply with the strategy.

Recycling and Waste – Reduce methane emissions at
landfills. Increase waste diversion, composting, and
commercial recycling. Move toward zero-waste.

Consistent. The state is currently developing a
regulation to reduce methane emissions from municipal
solid waste landfills. The project will be required to
comply with City programs, such as City’s recycling
and waste reduction program, which comply, with the
75 percent reduction required by 2020 per AB 341.

Water – Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner
energy sources to move and treat water.

Consistent. The project will comply with all applicable City ordinances and CAL Green requirements.
2017 Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Recommended Action Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Further increase
GHG stringency on all light-duty vehicles beyond
existing Advanced Clean Car regulations.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project that are required to
comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy: At least 1.5 million
zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric
vehicles by 2025 and at least 4.2 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2030.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project that are required to
comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

20.B.

Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures1 Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Innovative Clean
Transit: Transition to a suite of to-be-determined
innovative clean transit options. Assumed 20 percent of new urban buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be
zero emission buses with the penetration of zeroemission technology ramped up to 100 percent of new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the
optional heavy-duty low-NOX standard.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project that are required to
comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy: Last Mile Delivery:

New regulation that would result in the use of low NOX
or cleaner engines and the deployment of increasing
numbers of zero-emission trucks primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in California. This measure
assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5 percent of new Class 3–7
truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to 10 percent in 2025 and remaining flat through 2030.

Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards;
vehicles that access the project that are required to
comply with the standards will comply with the strategy.

Implement SB 350 by 2030: Establish annual targets
for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand
reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of
statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and
natural gas end uses by 2030.

Consistent. The project will be compliant with the
current Title 24 standards.

By 2019, develop regulations and programs to support
organic waste landfill reduction goals in the SLCP and
SB 1383.

Consistent. The project will be required to comply with City programs, such as City’s recycling and waste
reduction program, which comply, with the 75 percent
reduction required by 2020 per AB 341.
2022 Scoping Plan Recommended Actions to
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project Compliance with Recommended Action Deploy ZEVs and reduce driving demand Consistent. The project will be in an urbanized area within a quarter mile of transit.

Coordinate supply of liquid fossil fuels with declining California fuel demand
Consistent. The project will be compliant with the
current Title 24 standards.

Generate clean electricity Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards and would not interfere with clean energy generation.

Decarbonize industrial energy supply Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards and would be residential,
therefore would not interfere with this goal.

Decarbonize buildings Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards.

Reduce non-combustion emissions Consistent. The project will be compliant with the current Title 24 standards.

Notes:
1 Source: CARB Scoping Plan (2008, 2017, and 2022)
Table 20 Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Policies and Measures (see Table 17 of Appendix G) Consistency with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
At the regional level, the 2020-2045 RTP and Sustainable Communities Strategy represents the region’s Climate Action Plan, which defines strategies for reducing GHGs.

In order to assess the project’s potential to conflict with the RTP/SCS, this section analyzes the project’s land use profile for consistency with those in the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Generally, projects are considered consistent with the provisions and general policies of applicable City and regional land use plans and regulations, such as SCAG’s Sustainable Communities Strategy, if they are compatible with the general intent of the plans and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals.

20.B.

Table 21 demonstrates the project’s consistency with the Actions and Strategies outlined in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. As shown in Table 21, the project would be consistent with the GHG reduction-related actions and strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.57
Project Consistency with SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS1
Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Consistency Analysis
Land Use Strategies
Reflect the changing population and
demands, including combating gentrification
and displacement, by increasing housing
supply at a variety of affordability levels.

Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project is a residential
development on a currently vacant site;
therefore, it will not displace existing housing.

Focus new growth around transit. Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project is a residential
development that would be consistent with the
2020 RTP/SCS focus on growing near transit
facilities.

Plan for growth around livable corridors,
including growth on the Livable Corridors
network.

SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project is a residential
development that would be consistent with the
2020 RTP/SCS focus on growing along the
2,980 miles of Livable Corridors in the region.

Provide more options for short trips through
Neighborhood Mobility Areas and Complete
Communities.

SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project would help
further jobs/housing balance objectives. The
proposed project is also consistent with the
Complete Communities initiative that focuses on
creation of mixed-use districts in growth areas.

Support local sustainability planning,
including developing sustainable planning
and design policies, sustainable zoning
codes, and Climate Action Plans.

Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls on local
governments to adopt General Plan updates,
zoning codes, and Climate Action Plans to
further sustainable communities. The proposed
project would not interfere with such
policymaking and would be consistent with
those policy objectives.

Protect natural and farmlands, including
developing conservation strategies.

SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project is a residential
development in an existing residential
community that would help reduce demand for
growth in urbanizing areas that threaten green
fields and open spaces.

Transportation Strategies
Preserve our existing transportation system.

SCAG, County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls on investing
in the maintenance of our existing transportation
system. The proposed project would not
interfere with such policymaking.

Manage congestion through programs like
the Congestion Management Program,
Transportation Demand Management, and
Transportation Systems Management
strategies.

County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project is a residential
development that will minimize congestion
impacts on the region because of its proximity to
public transit and general density of population
and jobs.

Promote safety and security in the
transportation system.

SCAG, County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy aims to improve
the safety of the transportation system and
protect users from security threats. The
proposed project would not interfere with such
policymaking.

Complete our transit, passenger rail, active
transportation, highways and arterials,
regional express lanes goods movement,
and airport ground transportation systems.

SCAG, County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls for
transportation planning partners to implement
major capital and operational projects that are
designed to address regional growth. The
proposed project would not interfere with this
57 Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, pages 56 -- 62 (Appendix G).

20.B.

Project Consistency with SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS1
Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Consistency Analysis
larger goal of investing in the transportation
system.

Technological Innovation and 21st Century Transportation Promote zero-emissions vehicles. SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. While this action/strategy is not
necessarily applicable on a project-specific
basis, the City's Building Code requires the
proposed building to provide conduit for on-site
electric vehicle charging stalls, which the project
is to provide in the proposed parking garage.

Promote neighborhood electric vehicles. SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. While this action/strategy is not
necessarily applicable on a project-specific
basis, the City's Building Code requires the
proposed building to provide conduit for on-site
electric vehicle charging stalls, which the project
is to provide in the proposed parking garage.

Implement shared mobility programs. SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy is designed to
integrate new technologies for last-mile and
alternative transportation programs. The
proposed project would not interfere with these
emerging programs.

Notes:
1 Source: Southern California Association of Governments; 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, May 2020.

Table 21 Project Consistency with SCAG 2020 - 2045 RTP/SCS (see Table 18 of Appendix G) Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the project is required to comply with applicable Green Building Standards and the City of Hemet’s policies regarding sustainability (as dictated by the City's General Plan). With the incorporation of regulatory compliance discussed in Tables 19 – 21 of Appendix M (Tables 19 – 21 of this document) above, impacts are considered less than significant; further analysis is not warranted.

Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.

Issues:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,

20.B.

Issues:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires?
Comments:
a) Less than significant impact.

Construction
Various hazardous substances and wastes would be transported, stored, used, and generated during construction. These would include fuels for machinery and vehicles, new and used motor oils, and storage containers and applicators containing such materials. Handling hazardous materials would be a temporary activity and coincide with the short-term construction phase of the project. Only the amounts of hazardous materials needed are expected to be kept on-site, and any handling of such materials will be limited in both quantities and concentrations. Construction contractors will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding accident prevention and containment and to properly manage hazardous substances and wastes that are typically included in construction specifications.

Hazardous materials shall not be disposed of or released onto the ground, the underlying groundwater, or surface water. A totally enclosed containment shall be provided for all trash. All construction waste, including trash and litter, garbage, other solid debris,

20.B.

petroleum products, and other potentially hazardous materials, shall be removed to a waste facility permitted to treat, store, or dispose of such materials.

Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction-related materials, including but not limited to requirements imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, and San Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). With mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials regulations, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase. In addition, the implementation of the WQMP, which contains construction BMPs for handling hazardous materials, such as requiring stockpiles and other sources of pollutants to be covered when there is a chance of rain. With the implementation of applicable health and safety laws and the BMPs of the WQMP, impacts related to hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.

Operation
The residents of the proposed will typically use commercially available cleaning products, landscaping chemicals and fertilizers, and various other commercially available substances. The project's operation would be required to comply with relevant federal, state, and local health and safety laws intended to minimize the health risks associated with hazardous materials to the public.

The project would also implement the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which includes structural BMPs that ensure compliance with pollutant control requirements.

With mandatory regulatory compliance, potentially hazardous materials impacts associated with the long-term operation of the project are determined to be less than significant, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
b) Less than significant impact with mitigation. Accidents involving hazardous materials would not be significant to the public or the environment when handled as required and discussed under Section IX a) above.

Construction
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed River Oaks Ranch Residential Development Southeast of Lyon Avenue and Stetson Avenue, Hemet, Riverside County, California, prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., January 14, 2022 (Appendix N), found that the project site has been historically used for agricultural purposes from at least 1954 until the 1980s. The historical use of the subject site for agricultural purposes may have resulted in the application and accumulation of arsenic and/or organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) in shallow soil at concentrations exceeding unrestricted land use levels. The past agricultural land use and potential application of arsenic or OCPs to shallow onsite soil is considered a recognized environmental condition (REC) (page 22 Appendix N). The application of mitigation measure MM HAZ-1 will ensure that the soil

20.B.

is tested for arsenic and OCPs prior to soil disturbance. If either arsenic or OCPs are found at levels posing a human health risk, the soil will be excavated and sent to a permitted landfill.

The transport, use, and handling of hazardous materials on the project site during construction will be handled according to all regulations to ensure the risk is less than significant with mitigation, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.

Operation
The project site would operate as a multi-family residential use upon buildout. Based on the operational characteristics of multi-family residential uses, hazardous materials would not be used during the future occupant’s daily operations. However, as discussed above under Section IX a), the project applicant must comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations related to the transport, handling, and usage of hazardous materials. Accordingly, impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant during the long-term operation of the project, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
c) No impact. No schools are located within 0.25 miles of the project site.58 McSweeny Elementary School is located .47 miles from the project site. Throughout the construction process, any hazardous materials will be handled, stored, and used in compliance with federal, state, and City regulations. As noted above, the project will create multi-family residences that store and use various chemicals for routine housekeeping and landscaping. Comparable products will be required for the common recreation area and general project maintenance. However, none of these chemicals will be used in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to humans or the environment. The project will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste to cause danger to surrounding schools. Therefore, no impacts, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively to schools will occur.
d) No impact. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed River Oaks Ranch Residential Development Southeast of Lyon Avenue and Stetson Avenue, Hemet, Riverside County, California, prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., January 14, 2022 (Appendix N), included a search of regulatory databases, including the CERCLIS, LUST Facilities, UST, the SCAQMD’s Facility Information Detail database, the WQCB’s Geotracker database, and Department of Toxic Substance Control’s (DTSC’s) EnviroStor database (EDR). The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 therefore, the project’s impact would have no impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively e) No impact. The project is located approximately 1.75 miles away from Hemet-Ryan Airport and within the Proposed Airport Influence Area, Compatibility Zone E of the Hemet-Ryan Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).59 Residential uses are permitted within Zone E, with no density limit for residential uses. The project will not 58 Google Earth, accessed March 25, 2024. 59 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan – Accessed March 25, 2024, Hemet-Ryan Airport, website – https://rcaluc.org/ and https://rcaluc.org/sites/g/files/aldnop421/files/migrated/Portals-13-16-20--20Vol.-201-20Hemet-Ryan-202017- 20Final.pdf.

20.B.

create a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area from airport operations directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
f) Less than significant impact. The City’s Emergency Operation Plan describes the City’s response process for emergencies or disasters.60 In addition, the City, along with most other jurisdictions in Riverside County, joined with the County of Riverside to submit a Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) providing a framework for emergency response.61
Project access will be provided on South Elk Street, and secondary emergency access will be via West Stetson Avenue. These existing streets are within the City’s established street system. The proposed project will not alter the existing circulation pattern in the project area. Emergency access and evacuation routes will be unaffected by the proposed project.

Construction activities may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic. However, even temporary changes to the existing roadway network require the approval of the City and notification to all emergency responders.

The project provides adequate emergency vehicle access, including street widths and vertical clearance on new streets. Implementing federal, state, and local laws and regulations in the construction of this project would result in less than significant impacts, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively, to an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.
g) No impact. The project site is not within a fire hazard zone, as defined by the General Plan 2030, Figure 6.4 – Wildland Fire Hazard Severity Zones.62 The project will not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with wildfires; therefore, no impact directly, indirectly, or cumulatively will occur.

Mitigation:

MM HAZ-1: Prior to grading (ground-disturbing activities), the Permittee/Owner shall have a Certified Environmental Professional confirm the presence or absence of arsenic and/or organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) through soil sampling at the project site. Should arsenic or OCPs be present at levels posing a human health risk, the soil shall be excavated and disposed of at an appropriately permitted landfill.
60 City of Hemet Emergency Operations Plan 2013, accessed March 24, 2024, website – https://www.hemetca.gov/1155/EmergencyOperations-Plan-2013. 61 City of Hemet Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, accessed March 24, 2024, website – https://www.hemetca.gov/1140/Local-HazardMitigation-Plan-LHMP. 62 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan, adopted January 12, 2024, Chapter 6 – Public Safety Element, Figure 6.4 – Wildland Fire Hazard Severity Zones, page 6-21.

20.B.

Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.

Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
that 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?
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Comments:

The analysis for this Section, Section X, is based upon the information found in the Preliminary Drainage Study, prepared by Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering, February 17, 2023, Revised April 30, 2024, and June 29, 2024 (Appendix L), and the Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering, February 14, 2023, Revised July 15, 2024 (Appendix Q).

20.B.

a) Less than significant impact.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) The project site is located in the San Jacinto Valley sub watershed of the Santa Ana River watershed. which drains into the Pacific Ocean in Orange County. The City of Hemet is a Co-Permittee in, and is required to comply with, the Riverside County municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit (Waste Discharge Requirements for Riverside County - Order No. 2010-0033, NPDES No. CAS618033) adopted by the Regional Board on January 29, 2010. In conformance with this MS4 permit, and the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) it requires, applicable new development and significant re-development projects must consider and implement structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to retain and treat pollutants of concern (in dry-weather runoff and first-flush stormwater runoff) consistent with the MEP standard, and minimize hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOCs), both during and postconstruction. Mitigation for identified hydromodification impacts must be considered in the project’s CEQA document. Additionally, 2030 General Plan Policies CSI-4.3 and CSI4.8 would require the City to prevent pollutant discharge into drainage systems .63 The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), which provides oversight in California to the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The CWA established the NPDES permit system to regulate discharges to surface waters of the U.S. from municipal and industrial sources. The NPDES permit is required to identify limits on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in discharges.

The two basic types of NPDES permits issued are individual and general permits. An individual permit is a permit specifically tailored to an individual facility. Once a facility submits the appropriate application(s), the permitting authority develops a permit for that facility based on the information contained in the permit application (e.g., type of activity, nature of discharge, receiving water quality). The authority issues the permit to the facility for a specific time period (not to exceed five years) with a requirement that the facility reapply prior to the expiration date.

The General Construction Permit requires that construction sites with 1.0 acre or greater of soil disturbance or less than 1.0 acre, but part of a greater common plan of development, apply for coverage for discharges under the General Construction Permit.

By submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage, developing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address construction site pollutants, the General Construction permit requirements are met. Since the Project is greater than one acre, these requirements are in place. The Owner/Permittee is required to abide by all the provisions outlined in the SWRCB NPDES general permit for construction activities.

The project site has a natural gradient to the southwest of approximately 0.7 percent.

The site is surrounded by existing development and drainage facilities and is not subject to offsite flows. The project has been designed so that the majority of stormwater runoff 63 City of Hemet General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Chapter 15 Hydrology and Water Quality, page 4.9-22.

20.B.

flows from the apartments drain southwest to a bioretention basin located at the southwest comer of the project site. Stormwater runoff from the proposed club house area drains to a separate bioretention basin located just northwest of the project’s main entrance. The bioretention basins drain, via sub-drains, to an existing storm drain catch basin at the southeast comer of the intersection of Stetson Avenue and South Elk Street.

The catch basin is seven feet wide and has a tributary drainage area of 0.33 acres. The catch basin discharges to the Stetson Channel via an 18-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) storm drain. Flows in excess of the bioretention basin capacity surface flow through an under sidewalk drain to South Elk Street to honor the natural drainage pattern.64
The project design and compliance with existing federal, state, and local water quality laws and regulations related to water quality standards will ensure a less than significant impact, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively to water quality and discharge. b) Less than significant impact.

The EMWD’s regional management plan indicates that long-term regional demand for potable water is expected to increase; however, with continued conservation measures and replenishment of groundwater, sufficient supplies will be available to meet the demand. The project will result in multi-family residential land uses on the site, consistent with the General Plan 2030 upon which EMWD based its plan.

The 317,072 square-foot project site is currently vacant and much of the runoff that falls on the site percolates directly into the ground. Some of this runoff eventually reaches the local groundwater basin. Per the Geotechnical Exploration Report65, groundwater was not encountered within the maximum depth of the exploration (51.5 feet bgs). The project’s construction would create a less pervious area, approximately 162,914 square feet, where 317,072 square feet currently exist, which will substantially reduce the natural infiltration that presently occurs onsite. As discussed above, a drainage plan has been designed for the project that will capture storm water runoff. Operation of the project would use a municipal water supply and does not propose the use of any wells or other means of extracting groundwater. Therefore, groundwater should not be impacted.

According to the PDP SWQMP, the project would include areas where stormwater will flow from impervious to pervious areas. The project would comply with the conditions set forth by the Santa Ana RWQCB NPDES permitting program. Additionally, the construction of stormwater facilities and the implementation of the WQMP will ensure that adverse project impacts on groundwater supplies will be less than significant. c)
i. Less than significant impact. Project construction would be subject to local and state codes and erosion control and grading requirements. Because construction activities would disturb one or more acres, the project must adhere to the NPDES 64 Preliminary Drainage Study, prepared by Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering, February 17, 2023, Revised April 30, 2024 and June 29, 2024, pages 1 – 2 (Appendix L). 65 Geotechnical Exploration Report Proposed River Oaks Ranch Project Multi-Family Residential Development West Stetson Avenue and Elk Street Hemet, California, prepare by Leighton and Associates, Inc., April 10, 2024, page 4 (Appendix J).

20.B.

General Construction Permit provisions to prevent sediment from leaving the project site. Construction activities subject to this permit include clearing, grading, and other soil disturbances, such as stockpiling and excavating. The NPDES Construction General Permit requires implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevent Plan (SWPPP), including temporary project construction features (i.e., BMPs) designed to prevent erosion and sediment, leaving the project site protecting the quality of stormwater runoff. Sediment-control BMPs may include stabilized construction entrances, straw wattles on earthen embankments, sediment filters on existing inlets, or the equivalent.

Pursuant to the General Construction Permit, construction sites with 1.0 acre or greater soil disturbance or less than 1.0 acre but part of a greater common plan of development must apply for coverage for discharges under the General Construction Permit. By submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage, developing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address construction site pollutants, the General Construction permit requirements are met. Since the project is greater than one acre, these requirements are in place. The applicant shall abide by all the provisions outlined in the RWQCB NPDES general permit for construction activities.

In conformance with WQMP, the project is required to implement structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to retain and treat pollutants of concern (in dry-weather runoff and first-flush stormwater runoff) and minimize hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOCs), both during and post-construction.

In addition, grading activities would be required to conform to the most current version of the California Building Code, the City Code, the approved grading plans, and best management engineering practices. The project must also comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (Fugitive Dust), as noted under Section 2 – Regulatory Framework and Background on page 6 of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study (Appendix G). Compliance with these federal, regional, and local requirements would reduce the potential for both on-site and off-site erosion effects to accepted levels during project construction.

For project operation, ground surfaces would be stabilized by project structures, paving, and landscaping upon completion of construction activities. Therefore, impacts associated with soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
ii) Less than significant impact. The project site has a natural gradient to the southwest of approximately 0.7 percent. The site is surrounded by existing development and drainage facilities and is not subject to offsite flows. The project has been designed to honor the existing drainage pattern of the property. According to the Hemet Area Drainage Plan, a portion (9.4 acres) of the site is tabled to flow to the Stetson Channel. The balance of the site (5.6 acres) is a tributary to Elk Street. The developed condition stormwater runoff flows from the apartments drain southwest to a bioretention basin located at the southwest comer of the project site. Stormwater runoff from the proposed club house area drains to a separate bioretention basin located just northwest of the project’s main entrance. The bioretention basins drain,

20.B.

via sub-drains, to an existing storm drain catch basin at the southeast comer of the intersection of Stetson Avenue and South Elk Street. The catch basin is seven feet wide and captures runoff from the aforementioned 5.4 acres onsite and a portion of the south half of Stetson Avenue. The catch basin discharges to the Stetson Channel via a 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) storm drain. Flows in excess of the bioretention basin capacity surface flow through an under sidewalk drain to Elk Street which honors the natural drainage pattern.66
The design and implementation of the basin facilities will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer to ensure compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal standards.

Implementation of the required NPDES and SWQMP requirements discussed above, and other applicable requirements will ensure that drainage and stormwater runoff will not create or contribute to water runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site.
iii)Less than significant impact. Implementation of the required NPDES and WQMP requirements discussed above, and other applicable requirements will ensure that runoff water will not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. These regulations will also ensure the project will not provide additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, the project will directly, indirectly, and cumulatively have a less than significant impact.
iv) Less than significant impact. Flood flows will be redirected. As noted in the Preliminary Drainage Study (Appendix L), topographically, the site has a natural gradient to the southwest of approximately 0.7 percent. The site is surrounded by existing development and drainage facilities and is not subject to offsite flows. The project has been designed to honor the existing drainage pattern of the property.

According to the Hemet Area Drainage Plan, a portion (9.4 acres) of the site is tabled to flow to the Stetson Channel. The balance of the site (5.6 acres) is a tributary to Elk Street. The developed condition stormwater runoff flows from the apartments drain southwest to a bioretention basin located at the southwest comer of the project site.

Stormwater runoff from the proposed club house area drains to a separate bioretention basin located just northwest of the project’s main entrance. The bioretention basins drain, via sub-drains, to an existing storm drain catch basin at the southeast comer of the intersection of Stetson Avenue and South Elk Street. The catch basin is seven feet wide and captures runoff from the aforementioned 5.4 acres onsite and a portion of the south half of Stetson Avenue. The catch basin discharges to the Stetson Channel via an 24-inch Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) storm drain.

Flows in excess of the bioretention basin capacity surface flow through an under sidewalk drain to Elk Street which honors the natural drainage pattern. 66 Preliminary Drainage Study, prepared by Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering, February 17, 2023, Revised April 30, 2024, and June 29, 2024, pages 1 – 2 (Appendix L).

20.B.

The project will be required to comply with all applicable water quality standards. The project will be connected to the sewer system and on-site/off-site stormwater conveyance system to further minimize potential water quality degradation.

Therefore, the project will not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The impacts will be less than significant, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
d) No impact. The project site is located within a minimal flood hazard zone (Zone X) as mapped by FEMA (FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06065C2105G).67 Seiche is a temporary disturbance or oscillation in the water level of a lake or partially enclosed body of water, especially one caused by changes in atmospheric pressure.

Tsunami is a long high sea wave caused by an earthquake, submarine landslide, or other disturbance.

Mudflows (or debris flows) are rivers of rock, earth, and other debris saturated with water.

They develop when water rapidly accumulates in the ground, such as during heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt, changing the earth into a flowing river of mud.

The Project site is not located near any bodies of water, is located inland, and is not located adjacent to hillsides; therefore, there will be no impacts, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively on structures caused by a seiche or tsunami.

Standard erosion-prevention practices during grading and the lack of over-steepened slopes near existing development will result in a less than significant impact, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively related to mudflow hazards. e) Less than significant impact. The City of Hemet participates in the Hemet/San Jacinto Groundwater Management Plan created under a stipulated judgment that estimates the groundwater-safe yield for the management area. The management area is located in the western portion of Riverside County within the San Jacinto River Watershed. It includes the Cities of San Jacinto and Hemet and the unincorporated areas of Winchester, Valle Vista, and Cactus Valley. It encompasses 90 square miles and overlies four groundwater management zones. – the Canyon, San Jacinto Upper Pressure, Hemet South, and the Hemet North portion of the Lakeview/Hemet North. The project is within the Hemet South zone. The project has been designed to comply with the 2030 General Plan and proposes 22.6 units per acre, where 30 units per acre maximum were planned.68
As described throughout this section, Section X, the project is required to comply with the City of Hemet’s NPDES Permit, SWPPP requirements, and Municipal Code. The project would not obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
67 FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address – Accessed March 6, 2024, website – https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search. 68 EMWD Hemet/San Jacinto Groundwater Management Annual Report, accessed June 1, 2024, website – https://www.emwd.org/hemetsan-jacinto-groundwater-management-area.

20.B.

As previously stated, above-stated policies, NPDES permits, State Law, and the RWQCB General Construction Permit, which requires the implementation of a variety of BMPs on construction and operation of the project, are required to be obtained by the Permittee/Owner in order to construct and operate the proposed project. Additionally, Municipal Code Section 14-471, the City’s Water Quality Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 14-471), requires that projects comply with all state, regional, and local policies and guidelines regarding water quality and groundwater.

Therefore, the project will be designed to comply with existing federal, state, and local water quality laws and regulations pertaining to water quality standards, ensuring a less than significant impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on the water quality control and groundwater management plans.

Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.

Issues:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Comments:
a) Less than significant impact. The project site is in an urbanized area currently Zoned and designated in the General Plan for Multiple Family residential uses. The project will take its access from a driveway off South Elk Street. The following uses bound the site.

Land Use General Plan Zoning
Project
Site Vacant Land HDR – High-Density Residential
R-3 – Multi-Family
Residential;
North
Single Family Residential
(Mobile Homes)
(across W Stetson Avenue)
LMDR – Low Medium Density
Residential
TR-20 – Independent Mobile
Home Subdivision
South Single Family Residential LDR – Low-Density Residential R-3 – Multiple- Family Residential
East Multiple-Family Residential
Pacifica Senior Living
HDR – High-Density
Residential
R-1-5 – Single-Family
Residential
West Vacant
(across S Elk Street)
HDR – High-Density
Residential
R-3 – Multiple-Family
Residential
Table 22 Land Use & Setting
The project would develop multi-family residential uses on a property surrounded by residential uses and would utilize the existing roadway network. The project would not result in improvements that would physically divide an existing community or otherwise

20.B.

impact circulation on public roads surrounding the site. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur directly, indirectly, or cumulatively to an established community.
b) Less than significant impact. The City has designated the property as HDR – High Density Residential in the City’s General Plan 2030. This designation is consistent with policies and regulations established in the General Plan and Zoning Code. In particular, the following Land Use Objectives and Policies:69
Goal LU-1: Achieve a balanced and sustainable pattern of land uses, community services and amenities that provide for the needs of the City’s residents and businesses and enhance the overall quality of life in the community.

Policies: LU 1.3, 1.9, and 1.14,
Goal LU-20: Provide for new and infill development in compliance with Smart Growth Principles and accordance with infrastructure and public service capacities.

Policies: LU 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.9, and 2.11
Goal LU-3: Avoid land use conflicts and provide for compatible development.

Policies: LU-3.1, 3.3, and 3.5
Goal H-1: Provide for the attainment of quality housing within a satisfying living environment for households of all socio-economic, age, and ethnic types in Hemet.

Policies: H-1.1 and 1.2
The project provides a Multiple Family residential use and is well-designed and will be compatible with the surrounding area. The buildings are modern in design. They will include façades that are well articulated with vertical massing, varied-height parapet walls, and flat roof projections. The composition is clean and proportionate, with vertical massing breaks to create proper scale. The elevations are further enhanced by an earthtone color palette and balcony projections, providing shadow and visual interest.

The site will have a spacious feel with open landscaped areas and surface parking.

The project features landscaped areas throughout the site, meeting the water efficiency requirements while providing an attractive pallet. Fencing will be a combination of masonry walls of six feet around the perimeter, with tubular view fencing along the South Elk Street frontage. The maximum height of the buildings is 37.17 feet (Appendices A & C).

A variance has been requested to remove the required open space requirement per unit type and lower the average private open space requirement to 100 square feet. The 69 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan, adopted January 24, 2012, Chapter 2 – Land Use and Chapter 16 – Housing Elements.

20.B.

project meets and/or exceeds all other requirements of the Municipal Code. Setbacks, fencing, parking, height, landscaping, lot coverage, and density, to name a few of the required development standards of the R-3 – Multiple-Family Zone, have been met.

Per the Variance Justification (Appendix E), Highpointe (the applicant) demonstrates that the current general trend of development standards emphasizes the creation of usable common area amenities that are more functional and create better community appeal than private balconies. Market research also supports including an amenity package featuring spaces that support activities that could not occur on a private patio or balcony.

Examples include fitness centers, reservable clubrooms, co-working lounges, fire pits, and barbeques, all of which the Aster Apartments provide.

All other aspects of the project design meet Municipal Code requirements and the variance is justified through the balance of greater and more robust amenities. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur directly, indirectly, or cumulatively to any land use plans or zoning.

Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.

Issues:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Comments:
a) No impact. Except for the eastern and southern ends of the City which have not been studied under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) Mineral Land Classification system, the balance of the City is designated as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) MRZ-3. Within the City, MRZ-3 areas contain sedimentary deposits that have the potential to supply sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate.

However, the City does not consider these areas to contain deposits of significant economic value based on available data.70 The project site occurs in an urban setting and is not designated for mineral resource land uses, the project will not result in the loss of available known mineral resources. The project will have no impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively to mineral resources.
70 City of Hemet, 2030 General Plan, adopted January 24, 2012, Chapter 7 – Open Space and Conservation Element, page 7-20.

20.B.

b) No impact. Locally important minerals include limestone, serpentine, and sand and gravel which were mined in the Bautista Canyon, Diamond Valley, and the Salt Creek and San Jacinto riverbeds, respectively.71 Conservation of areas known to contain natural mineral deposits is indicated by the City’s OS-G (Open Space – General) zoning.

The Project Site is located outside of these areas of historic mining and is not zoned OSG. Therefore, the project will have no impact directly, indirectly, or cumulatively on the availability of important mineral resources.

Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.

Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Comments:

The Aster Apartments Noise Impact Study (Noise Impact Study), prepared by MD Acoustics LLC (MD), October 23, 2024 (Appendix M), analyzed the project’s noise impact and found the project’s noise impact on the surrounding environment to be less than significant.

Fundamentals of Noise
Sound, Noise and Acoustics
Sound is a disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source and is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a moving object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to a human ear. For traffic, or 71 City of Hemet, 2030 General Plan, adopted January 24, 2012, Chapter 7 – Open Space and Conservation Element, page 7-20

20.B.

stationary noise, the medium of concern is air. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or unwanted.

Frequency and Hertz
A continuous sound is described by its frequency (pitch) and its amplitude (loudness).

Frequency relates to the number of pressure oscillations per second. Low-frequency sounds are low in pitch (bass sounding) and high-frequency sounds are high in pitch (squeak). These oscillations per second (cycles) are commonly referred to as Hertz (Hz). The human ear can hear from the bass pitch starting out at 20 Hz all the way to the high pitch of 20,000 Hz.

Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels
The amplitude of a sound determines it loudness. The loudness of sound increases or decreases as the amplitude increases or decreases. Sound pressure amplitude is measure in units of micro-Newton per square inch meter (N/m2), also called micro-Pascal (µPa). One µPa is approximately one hundred billionths (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric pressure.

Sound pressure level (SPL or Lp) is used to describe in logarithmic units the ratio of actual sound pressures to a reference pressure squared. These units are called decibels, abbreviated dB. Exhibit C illustrates sound levels for different noise sources.

Figure 4 Typical A-Weighted Noise Level (see Exhibit C of Appendix M)

20.B.

Addition of Decibels
Because decibels are on a logarithmic scale, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by simple plus or minus addition. When two sounds or equal SPL are combined, they will produce an SPL 3 dB greater than the original single SPL. In other words, sound energy must be doubled to produce a 3 dB increase. If two sounds differ by approximately 10 dB, the higher sound level is the predominant sound.

Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels
In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz (A-weighted scale), and it perceives a sound within that range as being more intense than a sound with a higher or lower frequency with the same magnitude. For purposes of this Noise Impact Study (Appendix M), as well as with most environmental documents, the A-scale weighting is typically reported in terms of A-weighted decibel (dBA). Typically, the human ear can barely perceive the change in noise level of 3 dB. A change in 5 dB is readily perceptible, and a change in 10 dB is perceived as being twice or half as loud (See Table 23). As previously discussed, a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound energy (e.g. doubling the volume of traffic on a highway) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level.

Changes in Intensity Level,
dBA
Changes in Apparent
Loudness
1 Not perceptible
3 Just perceptible
5 Clearly noticeable
10 Twice (or half) as loud
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm Table 23 Changes in Noise Levels (Appendix M)
Noise Descriptors
Noise in our daily environment fluctuates over time. Some noise levels occur in regular patterns, others are random. Some noise levels are constant, while others are sporadic.

Noise descriptors were created to describe the different time-varying noise levels.

A-Weighted Sound Level: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighted filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. A numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness.

Ambient Noise Level: The composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the

20.B.

evening from 7:00 to 10:00 PM and after addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 AM and after 10:00 PM.

Decibel (dB): A unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micro-pascals.
dB(A): A-weighted sound level (see definition above).

Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ): The sound level corresponding to a steady noise level over a given sample period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time varying noise level. The energy average noise level during the sample period.

Habitable Room: Any room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code or other applicable regulations which is intended to be used for sleeping, living, cooking or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed spaces as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms and similar spaces.

L(n): The A-weighted sound level exceeded during a certain percentage of the sample time.

For example, L10 in the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the sample time. Similarly, L50, L90 and L99, etc.

Noise: Any unwanted sound or sound which is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing, or is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. The State Noise Control Act defines noise as "...excessive undesirable sound...".

Outdoor Living Area: Outdoor spaces that are associated with residential land uses typically used for passive recreational activities or other noise-sensitive uses. Such spaces include patio areas, barbecue areas, jacuzzi areas, etc. associated with residential uses; outdoor patient recovery or resting areas associated with hospitals, convalescent hospitals, or rest homes; outdoor areas associated with places of worship which have a significant role in services or other noise-sensitive activities; and outdoor school facilities routinely used for educational purposes which may be adversely impacted by noise. Outdoor areas usually not included in this definition are: front yard areas, driveways, greenbelts, maintenance areas and storage areas associated with residential land uses; exterior areas at hospitals that are not used for patient activities; outdoor areas associated with places of worship and principally used for short-term social gatherings; and, outdoor areas associated with school facilities that are not typically associated with educational uses prone to adverse noise impacts (for example, school play yard areas).

Percent Noise Levels: See L(n).

Sound Level (Noise Level): The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter having a standard frequency-filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum.

20.B.

Sound Level Meter: An instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and sound levels.

Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL): The dB(A) level which, if it lasted for one second, would produce the same A-weighted sound energy as the actual event.

Traffic Noise Prediction
Noise levels associated with traffic depend on a variety of factors: (1) volume of traffic, (2) speed of traffic, (3) auto, medium truck (2–3 axle) and heavy truck percentage (4 axle and greater), and sound propagation. The greater the volume of traffic, higher speeds and truck percentages equate to a louder volume in noise. A doubling of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along a roadway will increase noise levels by approximately 3 dB; reasons for this are discussed in the sections above.

Sound Propagation
As sound propagates from a source it spreads geometrically. Sound from a small, localized source (i.e., a point source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance.

The movement of vehicles down a roadway makes the source of the sound appear to propagate from a line (i.e., line source) rather than a point source. This line source results in the noise propagating from a roadway in a cylindrical spreading versus a spherical spreading that results from a point source. The sound level attenuates for a line source at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance.

As noise propagates from the source, it is affected by the ground and atmosphere. Noise models use hard site (reflective surfaces) and soft site (absorptive surfaces) to help calculate predicted noise levels. Hard site conditions assume no excessive ground absorption between the noise source and the receiver. Soft site conditions such as grass, soft dirt or landscaping attenuate noise at a rate of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance. When added to the geometric spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall noise attenuation of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance for a line source and 7.5 dB per doubling of distance for a point source.

Research has demonstrated that atmospheric conditions can have a significant effect on noise levels when noise receivers are located 200 feet from a noise source. Wind, temperature, air humidity and turbulence can further impact have far sound can travel.72 a) Less than significant impact.

Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
72 Aster Apartments Noise Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics LLC (MD), October 23, 2024 (Appendix M), pages 4 - 7.

20.B.

The adverse impact of noise was officially recognized by the federal government in the Noise Control Act of 1972, which serves three purposes:
• Publicize noise emission standards for interstate commerce • Assist state and local abatement efforts
• Promote noise education and research
The Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) originally was tasked with implementing the Noise Control Act. However, it was eventually eliminated, leaving other federal agencies and committees to develop noise policies and programs. Some examples of these agencies are as follows: The Department of Transportation (DOT) assumed a significant role in noise control through its various agencies. The Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) is responsible to regulate noise from aircraft and airports. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible to regulate noise from the interstate highway system. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for the prohibition of excessive noise exposure to workers.

The federal government advocates that local jurisdiction use their land use regulatory authority to arrange new development in such a way that “noise sensitive” uses are either prohibited from being constructed adjacent to a highway or, or alternatively that the developments are planned and constructed in such a manner that potential noise impacts are minimized.

Since the federal government has preempted the setting of standards for noise levels that can be emitted by the transportation source, the City is restricted to regulating the noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning.

State Regulations
Established in 1973, the California Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control (ONC) was instrumental in developing regularity tools to control and abate noise for use by local agencies. One significant model is the “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Matrix.” The matrix allows the local jurisdiction to clearly delineate compatibility of sensitive uses with various incremental levels of noise.

The State of California has established noise insulation standards as outlined in Title 24 and the Uniform Building Code (UBC) which in some cases requires acoustical analyses to outline exterior noise levels and to ensure interior noise levels do not exceed the interior threshold. The State mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element usually recognizes the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable, as illustrated in Figure 5 – Table 6.3 – Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments of the 2030 General Plan.73 73 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan, Chapter 6 Public Safety Element, page 6 -43.

20.B.

City of Hemet Noise Regulations
The City of Hemet outlines its noise regulations and standards within the Public Safety Element from the General Plan and the Noise Ordinance from the Municipal Code.

City of Hemet General Plan
Applicable policies and standards governing environmental noise in the City are set forth in the General Plan’s Public Safety Element. Figures 5 and 6 show the Tables 6.3 and

6.4 of the City’s Public Safety Element, which provide the land use compatibility guidelines.74 Figure 5outlines the exterior noise standards for community noise environments, and Figure 6 outlines interior noise standards for community noise environments.
74 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan, Chapter 6 Public Safety Element, pages 6 -43 – 6-44.

Figure 5 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Table 6.3 - 2030 General Plan Public Safety Element

20.B.

The City also provides stationary noise standards in Table 24, Noise Level Standards for Stationary Noise Standards. These standards apply at the property line of the noise source.

Noise Level Standards for Stationary Noise Standards
Noise Level Descriptor Daytime
(7 AM to 10 PM)
Nighttime
(10 PM to 7 AM)
Hourly average level (Leq) 60 dBA 45 dBA
Maximum equivalent levels (Lmax) 75 dBA 65 dBA
Notes:

Each of the noise levels specified above shall be lowered by 5 dB for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. These noise level standards do not apply to residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses (e.g. caretaker dwellings). The noise standard is to be applied at the property lines of the affected land use.

Table 24 Noise Level Standards for Stationary Noise Standard (see Table 1 of Appendix M) In addition to the noise standards, the City has outlined goals and policies in the 2030 General Plan Public Safety Element to reduce potential noise impacts.75 75 Aster Apartments Noise Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics LLC (MD), October 23, 2024 (Appendix M), pages 10 - 12.

Figure 6 Land use Compatibility Standards for Exterior and Interior Noise -2030 General Plan Public Safety Element Table 6.4

20.B.

Noise Measurement Locations
The noise monitoring locations were selected to obtain a baseline of the existing noise environment. One (1) short-term 1-hour noise measurement was conducted at the project site, and long-term data was extrapolated based on traffic patterns. Figure 7 shows the measurement location. Appendix A of the Noise Impact Study (Appendix M) includes photos, the field sheet, and measured noise data. Exhibit E of the Noise Impact Study illustrates the location of the measurements.76
Existing Noise Environment
One (1) 1-hour noise measurement was conducted at the project site to document the existing noise environment. The measurement includes the 1-hour Leq, Lmin, Lmax, and other statistical data (e.g., L2, L8). Noise measurement field sheets are provided in Appendix A of the Noise Impact Study (Appendix M).

Short-Term Noise Measurement Results
The results of the short-term noise data are presented in Table 25. 76 Aster Apartments Noise Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics LLC (MD), October 23, 2024 (Appendix M), page 15.

Figure 7 Measurement Locations (see Exhibit E of Appendix M)

20.B.

Short-Term Noise Measurement Data1
Location Start Time Stop
Time LEQ LMAX LMIN L2 L8 L25 L50 L90 Estimated CNEL2
NM1 10:08 AM 11:08
AM 46.6 62.7 39.2 53.1 48.4 46.7 44.8 41.8 50.3
Notes:

1. Short-term noise monitoring locations are illustrated in Exhibit E of the Noise Impact Study (Appendix M). 2. CNEL estimated based off typical traffic patterns. See Appendix A of the Noise Impact Study (Appendix M).

Table 25 Short-Term Noise Measurement Data (see Table 3 of Appendix M) Noise data indicates that the ambient noise level is 46.6 dBA Leq at and near the project site. The exterior ambient noise level is approximately 50 dBA CNEL and falls within the normally acceptable level from the Noise Compatibility Matrix for multiple family residential uses. The project must ensure that the levels fall below 45 dBA CNEL inside the residences. The existing noise level exceeds City standards. Additional field notes and photographs are provided in Appendix A of the Noise Impact Study (Appendix M).77 Impact Analysis
Operational Noise Impacts
Off-Site Project-Generated Noise (Traffic)
The potential off-site noise impacts caused by the increase in vehicular traffic as a result of the project were calculated at a distance of 60 feet. The distance to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours are also provided for reference. The noise level at 60 feet represents approximate distances to existing residential uses close to the subject roadway impacted by the project. The noise contours were calculated for the following scenarios and conditions:
• Existing Condition: This scenario refers to the existing traffic noise condition and is demonstrated in Table 26 – Existing/Existing + Project Scenario – Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA CNEL) from the Noise Impact Study (Appendix M). • Existing + Project Condition: This scenario refers to the existing plus project traffic noise condition and is demonstrated in Table 26 – Existing/Existing + Project Scenario – Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA CNEL) from the Noise Impact Study (Appendix M).

Existing/Existing + Project Scenario – Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA CNEL) Existing Exterior Noise Levels
Roadway Segment CNEL at
60 ft (dBA)
Distance to Contour (ft)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
W Stetson Ave North of site 67.8 43 92 198 426
77 Aster Apartments Noise Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics LLC (MD), October 2232024 (Appendix M), page 19.

20.B.

Existing/Existing + Project Scenario – Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA CNEL) Existing + Project Exterior Noise Levels
Roadway Segment CNEL at
60 ft (dBA)
Distance to Contour (ft)
70 dBA
CNEL
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
W Stetson Ave North of site 67.8 43 93 200 431
Change in Noise Levels as a Result of Projects
Roadway1 Segment
CNEL at 50 Feet dBA2
Existing
Without
Project
Existing
With
Project
Change in
Noise Level
Potential
Significant
Impact
W Stetson Ave North of site 67.8 67.8 0.0 No
Notes:
1 Exterior noise levels calculated at 5 feet above ground level. 2 Noise levels calculated from centerline of subject roadway.

Table 26 Existing/Existing + Project Scenario – Noise Levels Along Roadways (see Table 4 of Appendix M) Table 26 – Existing/Existing + Project Scenario – Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA CNEL) from the Noise Impact Study (Appendix M) provides the Existing and Existing + Project noise conditions and shows the change in noise level because of the proposed project. As shown in Table 26 – Existing/Existing + Project Scenario – Noise Levels Along Roadways (dBA CNEL) from the Noise Impact Study (Appendix M), there will be a 0.0 dBA increase in traffic noise at 60 feet from the centerline of the subject roadway as a result of the project. Therefore, project-generated traffic noise would not exceed ambient noise standards and the impact is less than significant; no mitigation is required.78 On-Site Project-Generated Noise (Stationary Sources)
The nearest sensitive receptors that may be affected by project operational noise include adjacent residential uses to the east.

On-site operational noise includes transformers and HVAC units. HVAC equipment is located on the rooftops. Each Type A building will have 36 rooftop units, and each Type B building will have 24 rooftop units (228 units total). Parapet walls line the perimeter of each rooftop. Equipment will be at least 150 feet from the nearest residential uses to the east. The maximum sound power level from a single unit is 72 dBA. At 150 feet away, the sound pressure level is estimated to be 28 dBA. Assuming all units are running simultaneously on each building and that the parapets provide a conservative 10 dB reduction, the sound level is 37 dBA Leq at the nearest residential receptors and they comply with the stationary noise standards provided in Table 6.5 of the City’s General Plan Public Safety Element (Table 1 of Appendix M Table 23 of this document). The noise due to the HVAC units operating simultaneously will meet the City’s noise level limit for residential properties.
78 Aster Apartments Noise Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics LLC (MD), October 23, 2024 (Appendix M), pages 20 – 21.

20.B.

Per ANSI and NEPA requirements for transformer noise, transformers will be no louder than 65 dBA at 6 feet. To ensure that the stationary noise standards are met, mitigation measure MM NOI-1 is required.

Operational noise complies with the Hemet General Plan Public Safety Element. The impact is, therefore, less than significant with mitigation.79 Project Compatibility
The exterior noise level at the project site will be impacted by transportation-related sources. The following outlines the impacts associated with exterior noise levels.

Noise Impacts to On-Site Receptors Due to Traffic
Traffic noise from West Stetson Avenue was evaluated and compared to the City’s guidelines. The traffic noise level and cumulative project conditions were calculated for the opening year. Per the project’s Landscape Plan, a 6-foot CMU block wall will be along the northern property line. Using the opening year plus cumulative project traffic and accounting for the property line wall, noise levels at the edge of the project site will be up to 62 dBA CNEL. According to the Public Safety Element of the General Plan, residential uses are acceptable up to 65 dBA CNEL.80 Thus, the project’s proposed land uses would be compatible with the adjacent roadway noise levels and associated impacts would be less than significant.

Noise Impacts to On-Site Receptors Due to Aircraft
The project site is located approximately 1.75 miles away from Hemet-Ryan Airport.

According to the Ryan-Hemet Airport Compatibility Criteria, the site is within the Proposed Airport Influence Area boundary line in Compatibility Zone E. Residential uses are permitted within Zone E. Additionally, the project site is outside the 55 dBA CNEL noise contour. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with airports and no impact would occur.81
Interior Noise Levels
The future interior noise level was calculated using a typical “windows open” and “windows closed” condition for the sensitive receptor locations. A “windows open” condition assumes 12 dBA of noise attenuation from the exterior noise level. A “windows closed” condition” assumes 20 dBA of noise attenuation from the exterior noise level.

Table 27 – Future Interior Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) indicates the first and second-floor interior noise levels for the project site.
79 Aster Apartments Noise Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics LLC (MD), October 23, 2024 (Appendix M), page 22. 80 Aster Apartments Noise Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics LLC (MD), October 23, 2024 (Appendix M), page 22. 81 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan – Accessed March 25, 2024, Hemet-Ryan Airport, website – https://rcaluc.org/ and https://rcaluc.org/sites/g/files/aldnop421/files/migrated/Portals-13-16-20--20Vol.-201-20Hemet-Ryan-202017-20Final.pdf.

20.B.

Future Interior Noise Levels (dBA CNEL)
Location
Roadway
Noise
Source
Exterior
Facade
Study
Location
Noise
Level at
Building
Facade1
Interior
Noise
Reduction
Required
to Meet
Interior
Noise
Standard
of 45 dBA
CNEL
STC
Rating for
Windows
Facing
Subject
Roadway2
Interior Noise Level w/
Residential Windows
Window
Open3 Windows
Closed4
1st Row Units
Along Northern
Property Line
W Stetson
Ave 1st Floor 62 17 25 50 42
1st Row Units
Along Northern
Property Line
W Stetson
Ave 2nd Floor 66 21 26 54 45
1st Row Units
Along Northern
Property Line
W Stetson
Ave 3rd Floor 66 21 26 54 45
Notes:

1. Noise level from Section 7.2 and from worksheets Appendix B of the Noise Impact Study (Appendix M).

2. Indicates the required STC rating to meet the interior noise standard.

3. A minimum of 12 dBA noise reduction is assumed with a "windows open" condition.

4. A minimum of 20 dBA noise reduction is assumed with a "windows closed" condition.

Table 27 Future Interior Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) - (see Table 5 of Appendix M) As shown in Table 27, the interior noise level will be 50 dBA CNEL with the windows open and 42 dBA CNEL with the windows closed at the 1st-floor northern units, and 55 dBA CNEL with the windows open and 45 dBA CNEL with the windows closed at the 2nd and 3rd floor northern units. To meet the City’s interior 45 dBA CNEL standard, a “windows closed” condition is required. However, noise regulations limit interior noise levels under “windows closed” conditions and do not require that windows be fixed. Because interior noise levels within the project’s residences would not exceed 45 dBA under “windows closed” conditions, project windows and sliding glass doors do not require more than standard glass.

Any unshielded residential glass facades within 90 feet of the centerline of West Stetson Avenue directly facing the subject roadway must have an STC rating of 26 or more, including the 2nd and 3rd-floor units of Buildings 1, 2, and 3 and mitigation measure MM NOI-2 is required to achieve a less than significant impact with mitigation. 82 Construction Noise Impact
The degree of construction noise may vary for different project site areas and depending on the construction activities. Noise levels associated with the construction will vary with the different construction phases. The construction noise and vibration level projections are provided in the sections below.
82 Aster Apartments Noise Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics LLC (MD), October 24, 2024 (Appendix M), pages 22 - 23.

20.B.

Construction Noise
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled data regarding the noisegenerated characteristics of typical construction activities. The data is presented in Table 28 – Typical Construction Noise Levels of the Noise Impact Study (Appendix M).

Typical Construction Noise Levels1
Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Engines
Type Noise Levels (dBA) at 50 Feet
Earth Moving
Compactors (Rollers) 73 - 76
Front Loaders 73 - 84
Backhoes 73 - 92
Tractors 75 - 95
Scrapers, Graders 78 - 92
Pavers 85 - 87
Trucks 81 - 94
Materials Handling
Concrete Mixers 72 - 87
Concrete Pumps 81 - 83
Cranes (Movable) 72 - 86
Cranes (Derrick) 85 - 87
Stationary
Pumps 68 - 71
Generators 71 - 83
Compressors 75 - 86
Impact Equipment
Type Noise Levels (dBA) at 50 Feet
Saws 71 - 82
Vibrators 68 - 82
Notes:
1 Referenced Noise Levels from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Table 28 Typical Construction Noise Levels (see Table 6 of Appendix M) Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full-power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels at the nearest sensitive land uses to the east are shown in Table 29 – Construction Noise Levels South Property Line. A likely worst-case construction noise scenario assumes equipment operating as close as 15 feet and an average of 250 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor. The Lmax levels represent maximum levels when construction occurs adjacent to the residential receptors. Leq levels represent the average construction noise level during each phase.

Construction Noise Levels South Property Line
Phase dBA Lmax dBA Leq
Site Prep 97.9 67.7
Grading 98.9 69.8
Build 97.9 67.6
Paving 93.5 68.3

20.B.

Construction Noise Levels South Property Line
Phase dBA Lmax dBA Leq
Arch Coating 88.5 60.0
Notes: Const Equip from CalEEMod
Table 29 Construction Noise Levels East Property Line (see Table 7 of Appendix M) Construction noise will range from 60 to 70 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptors and will have a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Construction will occur within the allowable times as described in Section 30-32 [.1] (43) of the Municipal Code; thus, the impact is considered less than significant.83
Construction Noise Reduction Policies
Construction operations must follow the City’s Noise Ordinance, which states that construction, repair, or excavation work performed must occur within the permissible hours.

To ensure that construction activities do not disrupt the adjacent land uses, the following measures will be taken:

1. Grading will occur Monday through Friday between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. from June 1 through September 30, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. from October 1 through May 31, and between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays year-round.

2. Construction (excluding grading) will occur during the allowable times as described in Section 30-32[1](43) of the City’s Municipal Code.

3. During construction, the contractor will ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise-attenuating devices. Equipment with a sound power level of 80 dB or higher must be equipped with mufflers.

4. The contractor will locate equipment staging areas as far as possible, away from the sensitive receptors.

5. Idling equipment will be turned off when not in use.

6. Equipment will be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.

During the operation and construction of the project, the project will have a less than significant impact on the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project. b) Less than significant impact.

PPV – The maximum instantaneous peak in vibration velocity is known as the peak particle velocity (PPV), typically given in inches per second.

RMS – Known as the root mean squared (RMS), can denote vibration amplitude.

VdB – A commonly used abbreviation to describe the vibration level (VdB) for a vibration source.
83 Aster Apartments Noise Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics LLC (MD), October 23024 (Appendix M), page 26.

20.B.

Construction activities can produce vibration that adjacent land uses may feel. The proposed project's construction would not require equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The primary vibration source during construction may be from a vibratory roller. A vibratory roller has a vibration impact of 0.210 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet, which is perceptible but below any risk of architectural damage.

The fundamental equation used to calculate vibration propagation through average soil conditions and distance is as follows:

PPVequipment = PPVref (100/Drec)n
Where: PPVref = reference PPV at 100ft.

Drec = distance from equipment to receiver in ft.
n = 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through ground) The thresholds from the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual in Table 30 – Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria provides general thresholds and guidelines as to the vibration damage potential from vibratory impacts.

Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
Source: Table 19, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Caltrans, Sept. 2013.

Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Table 30 Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria (see Table 8 of Appendix M) Table 31 – Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment gives approximate vibration levels for particular construction activities. This data provides a reasonable estimate for a wide range of soil conditions.

Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment1
Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity Approximate Vibration Level
(inches/second) at 25 feet LV (dVB) at 25 feet
Pile driver (impact) 1.518 (upper range) 112

0.644 (typical) 104
Pile driver (sonic) 0.734 upper range 105

0.170 typical 93
Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94
Hydromill 0.008 in soil 66
(slurry wall) 0.017 in rock 75

20.B.

Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment1
Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity Approximate Vibration Level
(inches/second) at 25 feet LV (dVB) at 25 feet
Vibratory Roller 0.21 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson drill 0.089 87
Loaded trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small bulldozer 0.003 58 1
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006.

Table 31 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment (see Table 9 of Appendix M) At a distance of 20 feet, a vibratory roller would yield a worst-case 0.268 PPV (in/sec), which will be perceptible but sustainably below any risk of damage (0.5 in/sec PPV is the threshold of old residential structures). The impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
c) No impact. See response VIII a) above under the heading Noise Impacts to On-Site Receptors Due to Aircraft.

Mitigation:

MM NOI-1: To meet the nighttime stationary noise standard of 45 dBA Leq, the Permittee/Owner shall ensure that the construction drawings show that all transformers are located at least 57 feet away from adjacent residences or are shielded to stay below the 45 dBA Leq nighttime noise level limit. The Building Department will check for the inclusion of these requirements on the construction drawings through the Plan Check process.

MM NOI-2: To achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL, the Permittee/Owner shall ensure that the construction drawings show that any unshielded residential glass facades within 90 feet of the centerline of West Stetson Avenue directly facing the subject roadway must have an STC rating of 26 or more. This includes all floors (the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd floors) of Buildings 1, 2, and 3. The Building Department will check for the inclusion of these requirements on the construction drawings through the Plan Check process.

Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV.POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:
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 road or other
infrastructure)?

20.B.

Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Comments:
a) Less than significant impact. The project will develop a total of 228 multi-family residences, which would induce population growth at the site. However, because the project would be consistent with the density allowed under the site’s R-3 zoning, this growth would not be considered unplanned. Furthermore, the project’s housing would serve to accommodate the future growth anticipated for the City.

The development of the site will result in multi-family residential buildings. The project site is located on existing streets, and utilities and public facilities are all available in the immediate area. Onsite roadways and internal utility connections would serve the project only and would not be available to offsite uses that could expand into undeveloped areas.

No new offsite roadways or utility infrastructure is required. Therefore, project-related impacts are expected to be less than significant, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. b) No impact. The project site is vacant and does not contain housing or people. Therefore, development of the project will not displace any persons or require the construction of replacement housing. In addition, the project site is Zoned R-3 – Multiple Family Residential. Therefore, there is no impact on housing directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.

Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.

Issues:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
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:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?

20.B.

Comments:
a)
i) Less than significant impact. The City of Hemet Fire Department, which has five fire stations, would serve the project site. The project is approximately 507 feet from Fire Station #2 at 895 West Stetson Avenue. As a result, fire personnel can reach the site within the recommended five-minute response time.

As part of the Site Plan Review (SDR-23-001) process being environmentally reviewed here and again prior to construction, the project plans will be reviewed by the Fire Department, and the project will be required to incorporate the Fire Department’s recommendations into the final project design. The Fire Department review and approval of plans would ensure that the project complies with the California Fire Code (24 CCR, Part 9). The project applicant will be required to install fire alarms and sprinklers to improve safety and emergency response per the California Fire Code as amended by the City of Hemet Municipal Code Section 903.2.

The construction of multi-family units will increase the demand for fire services. To ensure that the fire service is sufficient to meet Citywide demand, the City has established Development Impact Fees for Fire Suppression Facilities, of which this project will be required to pay prior to occupancy. These fees are used to expand the Fire Department Facilities to ensure Citywide demand for fire services can always be met.

The project's operations would involve the use of multi-family residential buildings.

Project construction could result in additional emergency calls to this location. Still, it is not anticipated that the overall demand for fire protection and services will increase to the degree that new or improved facilities will be required. Implementing the project would not substantially increase demand for fire protection services. Therefore, impacts associated with fire protection would be less than significant, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
ii) Less than significant impact. The Hemet Police Department will serve the project.

The build-out of the project will increase demand for police services. Police services are funded through the City General Fund, including property and sales taxes, which the project and its residents will pay.84 To ensure that police facilities are sufficient to meet Citywide demand, the City has established Development Impact Fees for Law Enforcement Facilities, of which this project will be required to pay prior to occupancy. These fees are used to expand the Police Department Facilities to ensure Citywide demand for police services can always be met
Project construction could result in additional enforcement calls and emergency responses to this location. Still, it is not anticipated that the demand for law enforcement personnel and services will increase the need for facilities, so new or improved facilities will not be required. Therefore, the implementation of the project would not substantially increase the demand for police protection services. Therefore, 84 City of Hemet FY2024/2025 Annual Operating Budget

20.B.

impacts associated with police protection would be less than significant, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
iii) No impact. The project is located within the service area boundary of the Hemet Unified School District. The closest schools to the project site include Mc Sweeny Elementary School and Diamond Valley Middle School, located within 0.25-mile of the project.85 The project is required to pay the state-mandated school fees at the time that development occurs. These fees are designed to mitigate impacts to schools by providing funds to construct new facilities. The Building Division collects the fees from the Permittee/Owner at the request for occupancy. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995, the payment of these fees is considered full and complete mitigation of project-level school impacts. By implementing all regulations and City and School Districts’ policies for development projects, the project will have no impacts associated with schools directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. iv) Less than significant impact. The City has a broad range of available recreation facilities, programs, and parks. Pursuant to Measure C, the City established a park ratio of 5.0 acres of developed parkland for every 1,000 residents. The City has met this standard citywide with the provision of neighborhood, community, and regional parks. There are 136.75 acres of mini, neighborhood, and community parks in the City and 604.5 acres of regional parks.86 The nearest park to the subject property is the mini-park – Spencer Park, located approximately 0.25-mile from the project site.87 The project will provide some common open space within the development to provide recreational areas for the new residents.

The project will increase demand for public parks, which the proposed on-site recreational areas will partially offset. In addition, the City imposes both statefacilitated Quimby fees and park developer impact fees. These fees are designed to reduce the impact of new development on City park facilities. By implementing all regulations and City policies for development projects, the project will have a less than significant impact on parks directly, indirectly, and cumulatively. v) Less than significant Impact. The project will result in a minor increase in demand for City services and facilities, including recreational trails and library services. This increase is consistent with the General Plan 2030 projections for these facilities and will be offset by the increased property and sales tax generated by the project's buildout. To support library facilities, the City has also established a Development Impact Fee for Library Facilities, which this project will be required to pay prior to occupancy.

Therefore, the impact on other public facilities is less than significant, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.

Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
85 Google Earth, accessed March 25, 2024. 86 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan, adopted January 24, 2012, Chapter 8 – Recreation and Trails Element, Tables 8-1 and 8-2, pages 8-5 – 8-6.
87 Google Earth, accessed March 25, 2024.

20.B.

Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Comments:
a) Less than significant impact. The City has a broad range of available recreation facilities, programs, and parks. The City established a park ratio of 5.0 acres of developed parkland for every 1,000 residents. The City has met this standard citywide with the provision of neighborhood, community, and regional parks. There are 136.75 acres of mini, neighborhood, and community parks in the City and 604.5 acres of regional parks.88 The nearest park to the subject property is the mini-park – Spencer Park, located approximately 0.25-mile from the project site.89 The project will provide common open space within the development to provide recreational areas for the residents. The project will increase demand for public parks, which the proposed on-site recreational areas will partially offset. In addition, the City imposes both state-facilitated Quimby fees and park developer impact fees. These fees are designed to reduce the impact of new developments on City park facilities. By implementing all regulations and City policies for development projects, the project will have a less than significant impact on recreational facilities directly, indirectly, and cumulatively. b) No Impact. As noted in XV a) above, the project provides private recreational areas.

However, the owner of the project will maintain these areas, and they will not have an adverse impact on the environment as determined by this environmental review.

Therefore, the project will have no impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively on recreational facilities.

Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.

Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the
project:
88 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan, adopted January 24, 2012, Chapter 8 – Recreation and Trails Element, Tables 8-1 and 8-2, pages 8-5 – 8-6. 89 Google Earth, accessed March 25, 2024.

20.B.

Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with program plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Comments:

The SEC Stetson Avenue & Elk Street Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), prepared by TJW Engineering, Inc, June 6, 2024 (Appendix O), and SEC Stetson Avenue and Elk Street VMT Screening, City of Hemet Memo, prepared by TJW Engineering, Inc., June 6, 2024 (Appendix P), has found the project will have a less than significant impact on transportation. a) Less than significant impact.

GENERAL PLAN 2030 – CIRCULATION ELEMENT
The project site is located at the southeast corner of West Stetson Avenue and South Elk Street. It will take access from the main driveway on South Elk Street and will have an emergency access driveway on West Stetson Avenue.

South Elk Street is a Collector in the General Plan Circulation Element.90 It is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway with a 66-foot right-of-way width, consistent with the 66- to 74-foot width in Table 4.3 of the General Plan Circulation Element.. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway, and bike lanes are not provided. Curbside parking is permitted. The posted speed limit is 25 mph.

West Stetson Avenue is a Four Lane Major in the General Plan Circulation Element. It is currently constructed as a four-lane divided roadway with an 88-foot right-of-way width or 44-half width right-of-way and an additional 6-foot easement providing 50, which is consistent with the 98- to 104-foot width in Table 4.3 of the General Plan Circulation Element. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway. Bike lanes are not provided. Curbside parking is not permitted. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. 90 General Plan Circulation Element

20.B.

The following 2030 General Plan Circulation Element Policies are maintained by the project design.

Policy C-1.1 Complete Streets Support the implementation of complete streets through a multi-modal transportation network that balances the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, mobility-challenged persons, older people, children, and vehicles while providing sufficient mobility and abundant access options for existing and future users of the street system.

Policy C-1.2 Comprehensive Design Street improvement projects shall be designed in a comprehensive fashion to include consideration of street trees, pedestrian walkways, bicycle lanes, equestrian pathways, signing, lighting, noise, and air quality wherever any of these factors are applicable.

Policy C-1.3 Traffic Flow Maintain Level of Service (LOS) C or better for roadway segment operations, and LOS D or better for peak-hour intersection movements. Portions of Florida Avenue and Sanderson Avenue may operate at or below LOS D on a case-by-case basis.

West Stetson Avenue and South Elk Street have both been designed and built to meet these design standards. The TIA (Appendix O) prepared for the project indicates that the project maintains the required Level of Service (LOS) of C or better on both West Stetson Avenue and South Elk Street.91
These roadways are consistent with the General Plan 2030 – Circulation Element as currently designed, and the project will not conflict with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element by changing the design.

EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The City’s Bikeway Circulation Plan is Figure 4.5 of the 2030 General Plan.92 As noted on the Plan, there is a Class II bicycle lane on Sanderson Avenue between Stetson Avenue and Domenigoni Parkway and a Class II bicycle lane on Palm Avenue.

Sidewalks along roadways and curb ramps at intersections are present in locations where development has occurred. Class II On-Street bicycle lanes are planned for Chambers Street, parts of Thornton Avenue, Stetson Avenue, State Street, Domenigoni Parkway, Mustang Way, Kirby Street, and Lyon Avenue.

Pedestrian designs are part of the planned street design as noted on Figure 4.2 – Roadway Classification Cross-Sections of the 2030 General Plan.93 Both West Stetson avenue and South Elk Street have already been built to these designs with the sidewalks already provided. The proposed project will not conflict with the existing sidewalks. 91 SEC Stetson Avenue & Elk Street Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by TJW Engineering, Inc. March 12, 2024, page 18 (Appendix O). 92 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan, adopted January 24, 2012, Chapter 4 – Circulation Element, Figure 4.5 – Bikeway Circulation Plan, page 4-37. 93 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan, adopted January 24, 2012, Chapter 4 – Circulation Element, Figure 4.2 – Roadway Classifications Cross-Sections Circulation Plan, page 4-24.

20.B.

Polices C-1.1 and C-1.2 (above) address how bicycle lanes and pedestrian improvements should be incorporated into project designs. Since these improvements have already been installed on West Stetson Avenue and South Elk Street as planned under the 2030 General Plan and the proposed project will not be impacting these improvements there will be no impact to bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES
The City of Hemet is served by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), which provides bus service to western Riverside County.

There is one transit route directly serving the project site. Riverside Transit Agency Route 32 travels between the Hemet Valley Mall and Mount San Jacinto College. Route 32 runs along West Stetson Avenue with a stop at the Elk Street/Stetson Avenue intersection.

Route 32 provides weekday service between 6:00 AM and 9:00 PM with headways of 60-80 minutes throughout the day and weekend service between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM with headways of 60-65 minutes.

The project will not require the relocation or closure of any transit facilities or the creation of new transit facilities.

OTHER PLANS
City Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
A review of the City’s Capital Improvement Program ( CIP) for 2024/2025 through 2028/2029, on October 31, 2024, does not show that any CIP projects are proposed in the project area, and the project will not conflict with this program.

Congestion Management Plan (CMP)
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Congestion Management Program (CMP) designates certain roadways as CMP facilities. SR 74 and SR 79 are designated highways on RCTC’s CMP system. SR 74 (Florida Avenue) is exempt from CMP requirements from Sanderson Avenue to Hemet Street because it operated at LOS F when the CMP was initially introduced in 1991. The CMP designates a minimum acceptable LOS of E on CMP facilities. (RCTC 2010). However, the City’s LOS standard for CMP roadways is more stringent than the RCTC standard. Because the City’s standard LOS requirement is LOS D, compared to a less stringent standard of LOS E for roadways that are part of the CMP, this section does not include a separate analysis of CMP facilities.

SUMMARY
As designed and conditioned, the project will not conflict with any of the above-noted plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. It will have a less than significant impact directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.

20.B.

b) Less than significant impact. The City of Hemet Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for CEQA and VMT (City Guidelines) (May 2021) outlines guidelines for CEQA analysis, including screening criteria and requirements for VMT assessment of land use projects.

The VMT guidelines provide several project screening criteria, including Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening, Low VMT Area Screening, and Project Type Screening.

To determine if a project is in a Low VMT Area, the City Guidelines provide a link to the online Western Riverside Council of Governments VMT Screening Tool. Using the project location, the tool determined that the site is within a low VMT-generating traffic analysis zone (TAZ) per service population. Per the City Guidelines Step 2 Low VMT Area Screening, any project in a low VMT-generating TAZ is presumed to have a less than significant impact. Therefore, a VMT analysis for the proposed project is not necessary.
c) Less than significant impact. The project site is accessed via a driveway off South Elk Street. Implementing General Plan 2030 policies C-1.18 and C-1.19 requires new and improved roadways to comply with existing City roadway standards, ensuring no hazards will occur.94 As designed, the project will be reviewed for both on-site and off-site safety hazards by Engineering and Fire to ensure adequate emergency access. The project will have less than significant impact on emergency access, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
d) Less than significant impact. General Plan 2030 policies and programs were designed to ensure adequate emergency services. Policies C-3.495 and PS-7.496 require adequate street widths and clearance to allow passage of emergency vehicles. Program PS-18 requires regularly evaluating the City’s emergency preparedness plans and procedures.

In addition, both the Fire Department and Police Department will review the project site plan to ensure safety measures are addressed, including emergency access.

The City’s continued implementation of General Plan 2030 policies and programs, along with implementation of the City’s existing Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), Emergency Operation Plan, and the review of the Project by both the Police and Fire Departments will ensure a less than significant impact, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively on emergency access.

Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
94 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan, Chapter 4 – Circulation Element, page 4-54. 95 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan, Chapter 4 – Circulation Element, page 4-55. 96 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan, Chapter 6 – Public Safety Element, page 6-51.

20.B.

Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:
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 lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

Comments:

The Cultural Resources Study for the Aster Apartments Project, prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, September 22, 2023 (Appendix I), includes a tribal cultural and historical resources study, archaeological investigation, Archaeological Records Search97, and a Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File Search98 within the project area. The main goal of the archaeological investigations was to gather and analyze the information needed to determine if the project would impact tribal cultural resources. a)
i) Less than significant impact with mitigation. The purpose of BFSA’s investigation was to locate and record any cultural resources present within the project and subsequently evaluate any resources as part of the City of Hemet’s environmental review process 97 Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix. 98 Ibid.

20.B.

conducted in compliance with the CEQA. The Cultural Resources Study included the review of an archaeological records search performed at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside (UCR), supplemented by records held at BFSA, to assess previous archaeological studies and identify any previously recorded archaeological sites within the project or in the immediate vicinity. The records search did not identify any previously recorded resources within the project; however, seven resources are recorded within one mile of the project site. BFSA also requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). This request is not part of any Assembly Bill 52 Native American consultation. The SLF search results were negative for recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the project vicinity. All correspondence with the NAHC is provided in Appendix C of the Cultural Resources Study.99
A survey of the site was also conducted by BFSA on August 25, 2023. The survey did not identify any cultural resources within the boundaries of the site. In addition, the site was not observed to contain any natural sources of water or bedrock outcroppings often associated with prehistoric sites in the area.

Pursuant to AB 52 (Gatto, 2014), the City sent letters of formal notification of the determination that the project application was complete and that the City was making notification of the consultation opportunity, according to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 on April 2, 2024. The City sent a 30-day notification letter to the following tribes:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
• Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
• Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians
• Pala Band of Mission Indians
• Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians
• Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
• Ramona Band of Cahuilla
• Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
• Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
The following tribes requested consultation with the City:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
99 Cultural Resources Study for the Aster Apartments Project, prepared by BFSA Environmental Services, September 22, 203, page iv (Appendix I – does not include the Confidential Appendices).

20.B.

During the course of consultation in accordance with Assembly Bill 52, the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians provided the City of Hemet with substantial information regarding Tribal Cultural Resources that could be impacted as a result of the project. The following mitigation measures are to be implemented in an effort to mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, to a level less than significant. The mitigation measures were prepared for inclusion in this environmental analysis, and the implementation of mitigation measures MM TRI-1 through TRI-3 was required to address significant resources that may be present on the site.

Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact with mitigation on causing a substantial adverse change to a significant archaeological resource. See Section V – Cultural Resources for impacts on cultural resources.
ii) Less than significant impact with mitigation. See response Section XVIII a) above. The Records Search referenced above did not identify the presence of significant resources on-site pursuant to criteria outlined in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1. However, as referenced, four Native American tribes requested consultation with the City, and the implementation of mitigation measures MM TRI-1 through TRI-3 were required to address significant resources that may be present on the site. Therefore, the project will have less than significant impact with mitigation, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on Tribal Historical Resources.

Mitigation:

MM TRI-1: 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 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians for Tribal Monitoring and the Treatment and Disposition of all Tribal Cultural Resources, and tribally associated artifacts discovered within the project boundaries. Native American Monitor(s) from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians shall conduct monitoring of all 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.

MM TR-2: 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:
a) One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City:
i. 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.
ii. 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

20.B.

recordation of sacred items is permitted without the written consent of the Soboba Band of Luiseno 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 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians prior to certification of the environmental document.

MM TR-3: 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 at the project site 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 regulations relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC to determine the most likely descendant(s). 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.

Issues: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.

Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?

20.B.

Issues: 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?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Comments:
a) Less than significant impact.

Water
The Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) will provide potable water to the project site (Appendix R). The Permittee/Owner is proposing to use the existing 8-inch waterline on South Elk Street and an 18-inch waterline on West Stetson Avenue to get the water to the project. The project will connect to both waterlines to provide a private looped onsite water system. The onsite waterlines providing service are anticipated to be 8-inch in diameter. The South Elk Street waterline will provide domestic and irrigation services.

On July 24, 2023, the EMWD provided a “Will Serve Letter” (Appendix R) indicating that EMWD is willing to provide water services to the project. EMWD prepares an annual report to document and analyze the region’s water needs and long-term demand for domestic water. The EMWD Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) is based on the projections of the City of Hemet’s General Plan for land use, and since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it is also consistent with the UWMP.

Therefore, the water usage will be consistent with the predicted use and growth identified in the UWMP as the EMWD based its planning on land use designations in its service district. Because the project is consistent with the planned use of the site and it is expected that the project will tie into existing domestic water lines, the project would have a less than significant impact on the need to relocate or construct new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

20.B.

Wastewater
The project will connect to the existing 8-inch gravity sewer main in South Elk Street.

Gravity sewer will be extended into the site for South Elk Street to serve the proposed buildings. Onsite sewer will be a private system.

Per a letter dated August 3, 2023, from the City of Hemet Public Works Department (Appendix S), the City has agreed to supply all sewer needs for the proposed project.

The wastewater will then be transported to the Eastern Municipal Water District’s (EMWD) San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Facility.

EMWD implements all Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements pertaining to water quality and wastewater discharge. EMWD’s Recycled Water System has the capacity for the treatment of 56 million gallons per day. It currently processes more than 49 million gallons of treated wastewater daily from its four operating regional treatment plants.100 This treated water is distributed throughout the Recycled Water Distribution System.

The project will generate approximately 66,348 gallons per day of wastewater, based on the average household size of 2.91101 and the General Plan 2030 EIR Table 4.14-6 – Estimated Wastewater Generation102 of 100 gallons a day per person. Based on a remaining capacity of 6 to 11 million gallons, the addition of the proposed project will not significantly impact EMWD’s capacity or the impacts associated with wastewater treatment. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the need to relocate or construct new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Stormwater Drainage
As discussed in Section X – Hydrology and Water Quality, the site was designed to honor the existing drainage pattern of the property. According to the Hemet Area Drainage Plan, a portion (9.4 acres) of the site is tabled to flow to the Stetson Channel. The balance of the site (5.6 acres) is tributary to South Elk Street. Hydrology calculations for the 10- year and 100-year storm events for both areas are included in Appendix B of the Preliminary Drainage Study (Appendix L). The developed condition stormwater runoff flows from the apartments drain southwest to a bioretention basin located at the southwest corner of the site. Stormwater runoff from the club house area drains to a separate bioretention basin located just northwest of the project main entrance. The bioretention basins drain, via metered sub-drains, to an existing storm drain catch basin at the southeast corner of the intersection of West Stetson Avenue and South Elk Street.

Flows to the catch basin will be limited in project design, through storm routing, to the peak 100-year flow rate as calculated in Appendix B of the Preliminary Drainage Study (Appendix L). The catch basin is 7 feet wide and captures runoff from the aforementioned

5.4 acres onsite and a portion of the south half of West Stetson Avenue. The catch basin discharges to the Stetson Channel via a 24-inch RCP storm drain. Preliminary storm drain lateral capacity calculations are located in Appendix E of the Preliminary Drainage 100 EMWD Recycled Water Today, accessed May 31, 2024, website – Recycled Water Service - Eastern Municipal Water District (emwd.org). 101 U.S Population website accessed March 26, 2024, website – https://uspopulation.org/california/riverside-county/hemet/. 102 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Chapter 20 – Utilities, page 4.14-22.

20.B.

Study (Appendix L). Flows in excess of the bioretention basin metered outlet capacity surface flow through an under sidewalk drain to South Elk Street which honors the natural drainage pattern of the south half of the project site.103 Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact with regard to the need to relocate or construct new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Electric Power, Natural Gas & Telecommunications
The project will connect to existing electric and natural gas facilities through Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas, respectively. The annual natural gas and electricity demands have been provided per the CalEEMod output from the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study (Appendix G). They are provided in Table 32 – Project Unmitigated Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary.104 Project Unmitigated Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary1 Natural Gas Demand kBTU/year
Apartments High Rise 3,713,130
Total 3,713,130
Electricity Demand kWh/year
Apartments High Rise 1,629,838
Parking Lot 207,010
Total 1,836,848
Notes:
1 Taken from the CalEEMod 2022.1.1.21 annual output.

Table 32 Project Unmitigated Annual Operational Energy Demand Summary (see Table 25 of Appendix G) As shown in Table 32, the estimated electricity demand for the proposed project is approximately 1,836,848 kWh per year. In 2022, the residential sector of the County of Riverside consumed approximately 9,061 million kWh of electricity. 105 In addition, the estimated natural gas consumption for the proposed project is approximately 3,713,130 kBTU per year. In 2022, the residential sector of the County of Riverside consumed approximately 284 million therms of gas. 106 Therefore, the increase in electricity and natural gas demand from the proposed project is insignificant compared to the County’s 2022 demand (page 63 of Appendix G).107
The project would have a less than significant impact on the need to relocate or construct new or expanded electric power or natural gas facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Telecommunication, Internet, and Cable Facilities
Telecommunications can be provided to the site via a variety of service providers, including AT&T and Spectrum. These companies have facilities located in the area that can be extended to the project. The Dry Utility Consultant for the project will coordinate 103 Preliminary Drainage Study, prepared by Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering, February 17, 2023, pages 1 – 2 (Appendix L). 104 Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, page 67 (Appendix G). 105 California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption by County. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx 106 California Energy Commission, Gas Consumption by County. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx 107 Aster Apartments Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Study, prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC, June 3, 2024, page 67 (Appendix G).

20.B.

with the telecommunications providers on the system design changes required to extend the system to the project. Telecommunication services are provided by private companies, the selection of which is at the discretion of the Permittee/Owner and/or the successor on an ongoing basis. Upgrades to existing telecommunication facilities and construction of new facilities to meet the demand of users are determined by providers and are subject to their own environmental review.

Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the need to relocate or construct new or expanded internet or cable facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
b) Less than significant impact. The project’s water demand would be met by water provided by EMWD. The 228 multi-family residential units proposed under the project would be below the 500-unit threshold established by Senate Bill (SB) 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001; Water Code Sections 10910–10915) to prepare a water supply assessment.

Furthermore, California Water Code Sections 10610-10656 and 10608 require EMWD to assess the reliability of water sources within their service area over a 20-year planning period through the preparation of an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Projected demand data utilized in EMWD’s UWMP is based on the projections of the City of Hemet’s General Plan for land use. Because the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan’s land use designation for the site, it is also consistent with the water demand assumptions utilized by EMWD’s UWMP. Therefore, the water usage will be consistent with the predicted use and growth identified in the UWMP as the EMWD based its planning on land use designations in its service district.

The project will tie into existing domestic water lines in South Elk Street and West Stetson Avenue. No new wells or additional water infrastructure or entitlements will be required, and none are proposed.

Furthermore, the project will be required to implement all water conservation measures imposed by EMWD under normal and drought conditions over the course of the project. The project will be required to implement any emergency measures that are in effect at the time the project is developed.

On January 27, 2015, the Hemet City Council approved Resolution No. 15-004, activating Phase 2 of the City's Water Conservation Plan, which implements a water use reduction program to achieve a 25 percent reduction in overall water use. The project will be required to comply with any water use reduction efforts designed to achieve this reduction as well.

As the project is consistent with the General Plan 2030, upon which EMWD has made its assumptions for planned water availability and compliance with all state and local regulations, the impact on water supplies will be less than significant, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
c) Less than significant impact. As noted in XIX a) and b) above, the project will not generate enough wastewater to exceed the current capacity of the EMWD’s Recycled

20.B.

Water System. EMWD implements all Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements pertaining to water quality and wastewater discharge. The project will have a less than significant impact on wastewater treatment, directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
d) Less than significant impact. The project is consistent with the land use designation and development density proposed in the 2030 General Plan. The General Plan land use is HDR-High Density Residential. The project proposed a density of 22.6 units per acre where the City’s 2030 General Plan analyzed for up to 30 dwelling units per acre.

Therefore, the project has already been analyzed under the 2030 General Plan Final EIR for solid waste capacity and has been found to be less than significant.108 All land uses that generate waste must coordinate with the City’s contracted waste hauler to collect solid waste on a standard schedule established in applicable locations. CR&R Waste and Recycling Services transports solid waste to the local landfill. By implementing the City’s and CR&R’s recycling programs, including the California Local Material Exchange Program, Electronic Waste Recycling, Organics Recycling and Household Hazardous Waste Collections, the City continues to divert waste from the landfill. Therefore, landfill capacity is available to accommodate this project, and the project will have a less than significant impact on landfills directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.
e) Less than significant impact. Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste generation, transport, and disposal are intended to assure adequate landfill capacity through mandatory reductions in solid waste quantities (for example, through recycling and composting of green waste) and the safe and efficient transportation of solid waste. The project will comply with all regulatory requirements regarding solid waste, including AB 939 and AB 341. AB 939, administered by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, required local governments to achieve a landfill diversion rate of at least 75 percent through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. Such regulations will apply to this project, and compliance is mandatory. Further, mandates set forth by the CALGreen Code aim to reduce solid waste generation and promote recycling and diversion design and activities, to which this Project is required to comply. There will be less than significant impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, regarding compliance with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.

Issues:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as
very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
108 City of Hemet 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, adopted January 12, 2012, Chapter 4.14 – Public Utilities and Energy Efficiency, page 4.14-30.

20.B.

Issues:

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?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines, or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk, or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts on the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
Comments:

The project site is not located within or near a state responsibility area or an area classified with Wildland Fire Hazard severity.109
a) No impact. The City’s Emergency Operation Plan describes the City’s response process for emergencies or disasters. In addition, the City, along with most other jurisdictions in Riverside County, joined with the County of Riverside to submit a Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). The LHMP is a requirement of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The Act requires that local communities enact hazard mitigation measures to reduce disaster losses. The LHMP includes a risk assessment covering wildfires, floods, earthquakes, nuclear incidents, civil unrest, and many other hazards.

The plan calls for an annual review of hazard mitigation activities.

The main driveway for the project will be off South Elk Street, and an emergency access driveway will be off West Stetson Avenue. Both roads are part of the existing street system within the City’s established street system. The project will not significantly alter the roads or the current circulation pattern in the area.

Construction activities may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic. However, even temporary changes to the existing roadway network require the approval of the City and notification to all emergency responders.
109 Cal Fire, State Responsibility Area Viewer,
website: https://calfire-forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=468717e399fa4238ad86861638765ce1 and City of Hemet, 2030 General Plan, adopted January 24, 2012, Chapter 6 – Public Safety Element, Figure 6.4 – Wildland Hazard Severity Zones, page 6-21.

20.B.

The project provides adequate emergency vehicle access, including street widths and vertical clearance. Implementing federal, state, and local laws and regulations in the project’s construction would result in no impact, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, on adopted emergency response or evacuation plans.
b) No impact. The project site is an infill site in a predominately developed area where no steep slopes or the possibility of wind erosion will occur. The project will have no impact on exposing project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled wildfire spread.
c) No impact. The project will not require installing or maintaining associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing environmental impacts. The project is in a residential area and is zoned and planned for multi-family residential uses. d) No impact. The project will not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, because of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. The project will include a graded site for the buildings and the project amenities. All walls will be designed and constructed per the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation and the California Building Code.

The project will have no impact on exposing people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, because of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.

Issues:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause
a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project 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

20.B.

Issues:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Comments:
a) Less than significant with mitigation.

Implementation of the project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal with the implementation of MM BIO-1. As described in Section IV – Biological Resources, the project impacts on special-status plants and wildlife with the implementation of MM BIO-1 would be less than significant with mitigation.

Through the AB 52 Tribal Consultation process between the Native American Tribes and the City, it was determined that implementing mitigation measures MM CR-1 and CR-2, and TR-1 through TR-3 will ensure the protection of tribal cultural and historical resources to a less than significant impact.

The project will not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California's history or prehistory. It will have a less than significant impact with mitigation as described in Sections V – Cultural Resources, Section VII – Geology and Soils f) Paleontological, and Section XVIII – Tribal Cultural Resources. The project would not impact any known historic, archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources. Nevertheless, it is possible that paleontological resources would be encountered at subsurface levels during ground-disturbing construction activities. To reduce potential adverse effects to post-review discoveries during project implementation, procedures for inadvertent discovery of resources will be implemented through MM PAL-1.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project will not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or 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 or impact tribal cultural or historical resources. All impacts to these environmental issues were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

20.B.

b) Less than significant with mitigation. The project cumulatively adds to the impacts of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, greenhouse gas emission, hazards & hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, noise, paleontological resources, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities/service systems. However, the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan Vision 2020 land use designation and, therefore, will not impact population and housing as it was planned and analyzed under the General Plan EIR. In addition, all reasonably foreseeable future developments in the City would be subject to the same land use and environmental regulations described throughout this document for the Project.

Furthermore, all development projects are guided by the policies identified in the City’s General Plan and development regulations established in the Hemet Municipal Code.

Therefore, compliance with applicable land use and environmental regulations would ensure that environmental effects associated with the proposed project would not combine with effects from past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the City to cause cumulatively considerable significant impacts.

Cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the project are less than significant with mitigation incorporated (MM BIO-1, MM PAL-1, MM HAZ-1, NOI-1 and NOI-2).

The project does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
c) Less than significant impact with mitigation. Direct and indirect environmental effects on human beings were analyzed in the following sections: aesthetics, air quality, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use and planning, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities/services systems. As found in the discussion of each relevant section, there are no potential impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to less-than-significant levels. Furthermore, the project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local policies and regulations. The project would not result in environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. With the implementation of MM HAZ-1, impacts can be mitigated to less than significant.

IX. CUMULATIVE PROJECT LIST:

1. Project Site – SDR 23-001 – To develop a 228-unit rental apartment complex on a vacant 10.07 parcel located at the southeast corner of Stetson Avenue and South Elk Street. The project will have 431 parking spaces in garages, carports, and surface parking. The apartments are provided in eight (8) threestory buildings, a one-story clubhouse/leasing office, a maintenance building, and nine (9) garage buildings.

2. TM-36892 – River Oaks is located at the southwest corner of Thorton and Chambers. It is the subdivision of 19.14 acres into 85 lots for single-family development with minimum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet.

20.B.

Page MM-1

MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE ASTER – RIVER OAKS PROJECT
X. MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)

1. Project Case Number(s): Design Review SDR 23-001
Variance 23-001
EA 22-003

2. Project Title: Aster – River Oaks Project

3. Lead Agency: City of Hemet
Monique Alaniz-Fletjer, AICP,
Community Development Director
445 East Florida Avenue
Hemet, CA 92543
(951) 765-2370
[email protected]

4. Project Sponsor: Highpointe Hemet I LLC
Cory Babinski
Owner Representative
16501 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618
(805) 722-5885
[email protected]

5. Project Location:

The 10.07-acre project site is located at the southeast corner of West Stetson Avenue and South Elk Street, within the City of Hemet, Riverside County, California. The project site is in Section 21, Township 5 South, Range 1 West of the former San Jacinto Viejo Land Grant as depicted on the USGS (7.5-minute) Hemet, California Quadrangle. The Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are 464-270-005 and - 006.

20.B.

Page MM-2
ASTER – RIVER OAKS PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM BIO-1: The Permittee/Owner shall engage a
qualified biologist to conduct a breeding
survey for migratory birds no more than
three days prior to the start of
construction to determine if nesting is
occurring. The term “construction” shall
include all the following: selection of
staging areas, demolition, tree, trash,
and debris removal, placement of
equipment and machinery on to the
property preparatory to grading, and any
other project-related activity that
increases noise and human activity on
the project site beyond existing levels.

Emergency measures are exempt from
this definition.
• If occupied nests are found, they
shall not be disturbed unless the
qualified biologist verifies through
non-invasive methods that either
(a) the adult birds have not begun
egg-laying and incubation or (b)
the juveniles from the occupied
nests are capable of independent
survival.
• If the qualified biologist cannot
verify one of the above
conditions, then no disturbance
shall occur within a distance
Permittee/Owner Prior to Grading
Permit Issuance
Permittee/Owner
shall provide
evidence to the
Planning Division

20.B.

Page MM-3
ASTER – RIVER OAKS PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
specified by the qualified
biologist for each nest or nesting
site. The qualified biologist will
determine the appropriate
distance in consultation with the
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.

REMARKS:

CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM CR-1: Prior to ground disturbing activity, the
applicant shall retain the services of a
registered professional archaeologist
(RPA), to conduct archaeological
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.

Permittee/Owner
Prior to
Grounding
Disturbing
Activities
Provide the
Planning Division
verification that a
qualified
Registered
Archaeologist
has been
retained.

MM CR-2: A Cultural Resource Management Plan
(CRMP), shall be developed by the
Project Archaeologist and the
contractor, in coordination with the
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, and
City, to thoroughly describe how the
project mitigation measures and
conditions of approval will be
implemented during the course of
Permittee/Owner
Prior to
Grounding
Disturbing
Activities
Provide the
Planning Division
verification that a
qualified
Registered
Archaeologist
has been
retained.

20.B.

Page MM
-4
ASTER – RIVER OAKS PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
project related ground-disturbing
activities. The CRMP will be subject to
the approval of the City prior to the
issuance of the grading permit. Details in
the Plan shall include:
a. Appropriate measures for
avoidance and preservation of cultural
resources as determined necessary.
b. The protocols and stipulations to
be followed in the event of inadvertent
cultural resources discoveries, including
any newly discovered cultural resource
deposits that may be subject to a cultural
resource evaluation.
c. Treatment of inadvertent
discoveries limited to basic recordation
and non-destructive analysis.
d. Pre-grading Pre-grading meeting
with the City, the construction manager
and any contractors, including but
limited to a mandatory Workers
Environmental Awareness 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

20.B.

Page MM-5
ASTER – RIVER OAKS PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
appropriate avoidance measures until
the find(s) can be properly evaluated;
and any other appropriate protocols.

REMARKS:

GEOLOGY & SOILS
MM PAL-1: The Permittee/Owner will ensure a
City-qualified paleontologist or
paleontological monitor supervised by
a City-qualified paleontologist is onsite to monitor all mass grading and excavation activities. Starting at a
depth of five feet below the surface,
monitoring will be conducted full-time
in areas of grading or excavation in
undisturbed alluvial deposits.
• Paleontological monitors will be
equipped to salvage fossils as
they are unearthed to avoid
construction delays. The
monitor must be empowered to
temporarily halt or divert
equipment to allow the removal
of abundant or large specimens
in a timely manner. Monitoring
may be reduced if the
potentially fossiliferous units are
not present in the subsurface or,
if present, are determined upon
exposure and examination by
Permittee/Owner Prior to Mass
Grading
Provide the
Planning Division
verification that a
qualified Project
Paleontologist
has been
retained.

20.B.

Page MM
-6
ASTER – RIVER OAKS PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
qualified paleontological
personnel to have low potential
to contain fossil resources. The
monitor shall notify the project
paleontologist, who will notify
the concerned parties of the
discovery.
• Paleontological salvage during
trenching and boring activities
typically comes from the
generated spoils and does not
delay the trenching or drilling
activities. Fossils will be
collected and placed in
cardboard flats or plastic
buckets and identified by field
number, collector, and date
collected. Notes will be taken on
the map location and
stratigraphy of the site, which
will be photographed before it is
vacated and the fossils are
moved to a safe place. On mass
grading projects, discovered
fossil sites are protected by
flagging to prevent them from
being overrun by earthmovers
(scrapers) before salvage
begins. Fossils will be collected
similarly, with notes and
photographs taken before

20.B.

Page MM
-7
ASTER – RIVER OAKS PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
removing the fossils. The site's
precise location is determined
by using handheld Global
Positioning System units. If the
site involves remains from a
large terrestrial vertebrate, such
as large bone(s) or a mammoth
tusk, that is/are too large to be
easily removed by a single
monitor, a fossil recovery crew
shall excavate around the find,
encase the find within a plaster
and burlap jacket, and remove it
after the plaster is set. For large
fossils, the contractor’s
construction equipment may be
used to help move the jacket to
a safe location.
• Isolated fossils will be collected
by hand, wrapped in paper, and
placed in temporary collecting
flats or five-gallon buckets.

Notes are taken on the map
location and stratigraphy of the
site, which is photographed
before it is vacated, and the
fossils are moved to a safe
place.
• Particularly small invertebrate
fossils typically represent
multiple specimens of a limited

20.B.

Page MM
-8
ASTER – RIVER OAKS PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
number of organisms, and a
scientifically suitable sample
can be obtained from one to
several five-gallon buckets of
fossiliferous sediment. If it is
possible to dry-screen the
sediment in the field, a
concentrated sample may
consist of one or two buckets of
material. For vertebrate fossils,
the test usually involves the
observed presence of small
pieces of bones within the
sediments. If present, multiple
five-gallon buckets of sediment
can be collected and returned to
a separate facility to wet-screen
the sediment.
• In accordance with the
“Microfossil Salvage” section of
the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology guidelines
(2010:7), bulk sampling and
screening of fine-grained
sedimentary deposits (including
carbonate-rich paleosols) must
be performed if the deposits are
identified to possess indications
of producing fossil
“microvertebrates” to test the

20.B.

Page MM
-9
ASTER – RIVER OAKS PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
feasibility of the deposit to yield
fossil bones and teeth.
• In the laboratory, individual
fossils will be cleaned of
extraneous matrix, any breaks
will be repaired, and the
specimen, if needed, will be
stabilized by soaking in an
archivally approved acrylic
hardener (e.g., a solution of
acetone and Paraloid B-72).
• Recovered specimens will be
prepared to the point of
identification and permanent
preservation (not display),
including screen-washing
sediments to recover small
invertebrates and vertebrates.

Preparation of individual
vertebrate fossils is often more
time-consuming than
accumulations of invertebrate
fossils.
• Identification and curation of
specimens into a professional,
accredited public museum
repository with a commitment to
archival conservation and
permanent retrievable storage
(e.g., the Western Science Center) shall be conducted. The

20.B.

Page MM-10
ASTER – RIVER OAKS PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
paleontological program shall
include a written repository
agreement before initiating
mitigation activities. Prior to
curation, the lead agency (the
City of Hemet) will be consulted
on the repository/museum to
receive the fossil material.
• A final report of findings and
significance will be prepared,
including lists of recovered
fossils and necessary maps and
graphics to record their original
location(s) accurately. When
submitted to and accepted by
the appropriate lead agency,
the report will signify
satisfactory completion of the
project program to mitigate
impacts to any potential
nonrenewable paleontological
resources (i.e., fossils) that
might have been lost or
otherwise adversely affected
without such a program.

REMARKS:

HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MM HAZ-1: Prior to grading (ground-disturbing
activities), the Permittee/Owner shall Permittee/Owner Prior to Grounding Provide the
Planning Division

20.B.

Page MM-11
ASTER – RIVER OAKS PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
have a Certified Environmental
Professional confirm the presence or
absence of arsenic and/or
organochlorine pesticides (OCPs)
through soil sampling at the project
site. Should arsenic or OCPs be
present at levels posing a human
health risk, the soil shall be excavated
and disposed of at an appropriately
permitted landfill.

Disturbing
Activities
verification that a
qualified Certified
Environmental
Professional has
been retained.

REMARKS:

NOISE
MM NOI-1 To meet the nighttime stationary
noise standard of 45 dBA Leq, the
Permittee/Owner shall ensure that
the construction drawings show that
all transformers are located at least
57 feet away from adjacent
residences or are shielded to stay
below the 45 dBA Leq nighttime
noise level limit. The Building
Department will check for the
inclusion of these requirements on
the construction drawings through
the Plan Check process.

Permittee/Owner Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
Building Plan
Check
MM NOI-2 To achieve an interior noise level of
45 dBA CNEL, the Permittee/Owner
shall ensure that the construction
drawings show that any unshielded
residential glass facades within 90
Permittee/Owner Prior to Building
Permit Issuance
Building Plan
Check

20.B.

Page MM-12
ASTER – RIVER OAKS PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
feet of the centerline of West Stetson
Avenue directly facing the subject
roadway must have an STC rating of
26 or more. This includes all floors
(the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd floors) of
Buildings 1, 2, and 3. The Building
Department will check for the
inclusion of these requirements on
the construction drawings through
the Plan Check process.

REMARKS:

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM TR-1: 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 Soboba Band of
Luiseno Indians for Tribal Monitoring
and the Treatment and Disposition of
all Tribal Cultural Resources, and
tribally associated artifacts discovered
within the project boundaries. Native
American Monitor(s) from the Soboba
Band of Luiseno Indians shall conduct
monitoring of all 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
Permittee/Owner
Prior to
Grounding
Disturbing
Activities
Provide the
Planning Division
verification that a
qualified
Registered
Archaeologist
has been
retained.

20.B.

Page MM-13
ASTER – RIVER OAKS PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
resources are unearthed during
project construction.

MM TR-2: 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:
a) One or more of the following
treatments, in order of preference,
shall be employed. Evidence of such
shall be provided to the City:
i. 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.
ii. 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 Soboba Band of
Luiseno Indians. The location for the
Archaeologist in
Coordination
with Soboba
Band of Luiseño
Indians, the
Contractor and
the City
Prior to
Grounding
Disturbing
Activities
Provide the
Planning Division
with a copy of the
Cultural
Resource
Management
Plan

20.B.

Page MM-14
ASTER – RIVER OAKS PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
future reburial area shall be identified
on a confidential exhibit on file with
the City, and concurred to by the
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians prior
to certification of the environmental
document.

MM TR-3: 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 at
the project site 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
Permittee/Owner
Prior to
Issuance of a
Grading Permit
and
Commencement
of Ground
Disturbing
Activities
Provide the
Soboba Band of
Luiseño Indians
and Planning
Division with a
copy of the
Agreement

20.B.

Page MM-15
ASTER – RIVER OAKS PROJECT
Mitigation Measures Responsible
Party
Monitoring
Timing or
Frequency
Type of
Verification
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date
comply with the state regulations
relating to the disposition of Native
American burials that fall within the
jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC
Section 5097). The coroner shall
contact the NAHC to determine the
most likely descendant(s). 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.

REMARKS:

20.B.

Please click on the link below to view documents.
https://www.hemetca.gov/797/Environmental-Documents

20.B.

Planning Commission Resolution
SDR 23-001 and VAR 23-001 Highpointe Aster River Oaks

1 2
3 4
5 6 CITY OF HEMET
7 Hemet, California
8 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
10 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX
11 12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
13 CITY OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA APPROVING SITE
14 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 23-001 AND VARIANCE 23-001
15 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHPOINTE ASTER RIVER
16 OAKS 228-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
17 APARTMENT COMPLEX AND VARIANCE RELATED TO
18 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE ON 10.07 GROSS ACRES,
19 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEST
20 STETSON AVENUE AND SOUTH ELK STREET.
21 22
23 WHEREAS, an application for Site Development Review (SDR 23-001) and 24 Variance (VAR 23-001 was duly filed for consideration by:
25 26 Applicant: Highpointe Hemet I LLC
27 Property Owner: Highpointe Hemet I LLC
28 Project Location: Southeast corner of West Stetson Avenue and South Elk 29 Street.
30 APN: 464-270-005; and 006
31 Lot Area: 10.07 Gross Acres
32 33 WHEREAS, A Site Development Review (SDR 23-001) and Variance (VAR 23- 34 001) was submitted for consideration on March 20, 2023; and 35 36 WHEREAS, on December 19, 2024 the City gave public notice by advertising in 37 the Press Enterprise and by mailing to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the 38 holding of a public hearing at which the project would be considered by the Planning 39 Commission; and
40 41 WHEREAS, on January 21, 2025 the City of Hemet Planning Commission 42 continued the public hearing to February 4, 2025 to allow the applicant additional time to 43 review the draft conditions of approval;
44 45

20.B.

Planning Commission Resolution
SDR 23-001 and VAR 23-001 Highpointe Aster River Oaks

1 WHEREAS, on February 4, 2025 the City of Hemet Planning Commission 2 continued the public hearing to February 18, 2025 to allow the applicant additional time 3 to prepare and redistribute the public hearing notice due to an error in processing; 4 5 WHEREAS, on February 18, 2025 the City of Hemet Planning Commission was 6 cancelled due to a lack of quorum.
7 8 WHEREAS, on February 28, 2025 the City gave public notice by advertising in the 9 Press Enterprise and by mailing to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the 10 holding of a public hearing at which the project would be considered by the Planning 11 Commission; and
12 13 WHEREAS, on March 10, 2025 the City of Hemet Planning Commission held the 14 continued public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in 15 support of, or opposition to the proposed Site Development Review SDR 23-001 for 228- 16 Unit Multi-Family Development and Variance VAR 23-001 from the private open space 17 requirements outlined in Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-386(f)(1)(B) as provided in 18 the findings Section 3 of this resolution at which the Planning Commission considered the 19 proposed Site Development Review and Variance; and approved the Site Development 20 Review (SDR 23-001) and Variance (VAR 23-001) subject to conditions of approval; and 21 22 NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Hemet now finds, 23 determines and resolves as follows:
24 25 SECTION 1: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
26 27 The Planning Commission, in light of the whole record before it, including but not limited 28 to, the City’s local CEQA Guidelines and thresholds of Significance, the recommendation 29 of the Community Development Director as provided in the Staff Report dated February 30 18, 2025, all documents incorporated therein by reference, and any other evidence (within 31 the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2) within the record or 32 provided at the public hearing of this matter, hereby finds and determines as follows:
33 34 1. CEQA. The City of Hemet pursuant to a separate Resolution intends to adopt a 35 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project described above. This notice is made 36 pursuant to Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based 37 on the information contained in the Initial Study, and pursuant to the requirements of 38 CEQA; it has determined that this Project, with incorporated mitigation measures, will 39 not have a significant impact upon the environment. The mitigation measures required 40 to reduce or mitigate the impacts of this Project on the environment are included in 41 the Project design and/or the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (MMRP) 42 and will be included as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this Project. In 43 accordance with the disclosure requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15072 44 (g)(5), the project site IS NOT listed as a hazardous property as designated under 45 Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The project IS NOT a project of statewide, 46 regional, or areawide significance as designated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15206.

20.B.

Planning Commission Resolution
SDR 23-001 and VAR 23-001 Highpointe Aster River Oaks

1 The project WILL NOT affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the 2 State Department of Transportation.
3 4 NOW, THERFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Hemet does Resolve, 5 Determine, Find and Order as follows:
6 7 SECTION 2: SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS
8 9 Pursuant to Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-48(a) and in light of the record before it 10 including the staff report dated February 18, 2025and all evidence and testimony heard 11 at the public hearing of this item, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
12 13 Based on the foregoing findings, and on substantial evidence in the whole of the record, 14 the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings in accordance with Hemet 15 Municipal Code Section 90-48.1(a):
16 17 1. The project complies with all provisions of Article II (Site Development Plan Review) of 18 the Hemet Zoning Code – Chapter 90 of the Hemet Municipal Code and all other relevant 19 city regulations, polices and guidelines including applicable design guidelines, specific 20 plan requirements, and general plan policies.
21 22 Finding: The Highpointe Aster River Oaks is a 228-unit multi-family housing 23 community on 10.07 gross-acres. The General Plan Land Use Designation of 24 property is High Density Residential, which is consistent with the Zoning of R-3 25 Multi-Family Residential Zone (18.1 to 30 dwelling units per acre). The proposed 26 density of the project is 22.6 dwelling units per acre based on 10.07 gross-acres. 27 With the exception of the proposed variance related to private open space, the 28 proposed development is in conformance with the development standards of the 29 R-3 Multi-Family Residential zone relative to setbacks, building height, lot 30 coverage, parking, vehicle circulation, fencing, and landscaping. Furthermore, the 31 project is in compliance with the Design Guidelines as described in the findings 32 below.
33 34 2. The project complies with the California Environmental Quality Act and all applicable 35 requirements and procedures of the act have been followed. 36 37 Finding: The City of Hemet pursuant to a separate Resolution intends to adopt a 38 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project described above. This notice is 39 made pursuant to Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act 40 (CEQA). Based on the information contained in the Initial Study, and pursuant to 41 the requirements of CEQA; it has determined that this Project, with incorporated 42 mitigation measures, will not have a significant impact upon the environment. The 43 mitigation measures required to reduce or mitigate the impacts of this Project on 44 the environment are included in the Project design and/or the Mitigation Monitoring 45 and Reporting Program, (MMRP) and will be included as part of the Mitigated 46 Negative Declaration for this Project. In accordance with the disclosure

20.B.

Planning Commission Resolution
SDR 23-001 and VAR 23-001 Highpointe Aster River Oaks

1 requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15072 (g)(5), the project site IS NOT 2 listed as a hazardous property as designated under Section 65962.5 of the 3 Government Code. The project IS NOT a project of statewide, regional, or 4 areawide significance as designated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15206. The 5 project WILL NOT affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the 6 State Department of Transportation.
7 8 3. The design, scale, height, and layout of the project is appropriate for the site, will not 9 unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future 10 developments, will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards and will not otherwise have a 11 negative impact on the aesthetics, health, safety or welfare of neighboring uses. 12 13 Finding: With the exception of the proposed variance, the overall design of the 14 development is consistent with the development standards of the zone in terms of 15 building height, building setbacks, access to the site, street improvements, parking 16 design, emergency access lanes, open space, on-site amenities, utility planning, 17 drainage design, and landscaping. The proposed apartment buildings are 18 approximately 156 feet away from single-family residential properties to the south 19 and 90 feet from Pacifica Senior living to the east. A condition of approval will 20 require the landscape designer to work with Planning to ensure that complete 21 screening of plant at maturity is provided along the southern property. 22 23 The project has been designed to comply with the development and performance 24 standards of the R-3 Multiple Family Residential Zone with respect to building 25 setbacks, building height, lot coverage, dwelling units per acre, landscaping, 26 emergency access, landscape buffering, screening and fencing, building 27 placement, lighting standards, and parking requirements. The recommended 28 conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring program conditions will ensure 29 that the development will not create negative impacts on the aesthetics, health, 30 safety or welfare of neighboring uses. The design, scale, height, and layout is 31 appropriate for the site and will complement the surrounding neighboring uses. 32 33 4.The architectural design of the project is compatible with the character of the 34 surrounding neighborhood and will enhance the visual character of the neighborhood 35 through good aesthetic use of materials, texture and color. 36 37 Finding: The architectural design is Modern and will include building facades, 38 which are simple, square, and rectangular in nature. The elevations provide 39 articulation through the creative use of colors, window orientation, board railing, 40 recessed windows, patio projections, and an interplay of gabled roof and parapets. 41 Color Scheme 1 for the buildings includes concrete tile roof in Saxony 900 Slate 42 Stone Mountain Blend, and integral colored stucco sand finish in SW 7031 Mega 43 Greige, SW 7622 Homburg Gray, SW 7042 Shoji White, with SW 7042 Shoji White 44 trim. Exterior patio enclosures include a cementitious board material in Allura Red 45 Rock Falls. Color Scheme 2 includes Concrete Tile Roofing in Saxony 900 Country 46 Slate Sahara Quartz Blend, and integral colored stucco sand finish in SW 7032

20.B.

Planning Commission Resolution
SDR 23-001 and VAR 23-001 Highpointe Aster River Oaks

1 Warm Stone, SW 7730 Forestwood, and SW 7042 Shoji White trim and stucco. 2 Exterior patio enclosures include a cementitious board material in Allura Red Rock 3 Falls. All buildings will be garden-style walk-ups with concrete slab-on-grade 4 foundations. The contemporary architectural design of the project will enhance the 5 visual character of the neighborhood through good aesthetic use of material, 6 texture and colors and landscaping.
7 8 5. The project applies applicable energy, water, and open space conservation practices 9 to project design as outlined in the general plan and any relevant specific plan to help 10 manage and conserve natural resources for the benefit of current and future residents. 11 12 Finding: The proposed new construction will be conditioned to comply with Title 24 13 of the California Building Code and the California Green Building Code. Title 24 14 addresses energy efficiency, water efficiency and conversation, material 15 conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. 16 17 SECTION 3: VARIANCE FINDINGS
18 19 The applicant is requesting a variance from Hemet Municipal Code Section 90- 20 386(f)(1)(B) which prescribes 100 square feet of private open space for a one-bedroom, 21 and 150 square feet of private open space for two- or more bedrooms, with an average 22 of 125 square feet respectively. Pursuant to Hemet Municipal Code Section 90-44.5 and 23 in light of the record before it including the staff report dated February 18, 2025 and all 24 evidence and testimony heard at the public hearing of this item, the Planning Commission 25 hereby finds as follows:
26 27 1. There are unique physical circumstances applicable to the subject land, including 28 size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. If the approving body finds 29 that the physical circumstances are similar to other parcels in the zone, such 30 circumstances are not unique and a variance shall not be granted; and 31 Finding: A: The applicant is requesting a variance from Hemet Municipal Code 32 Section 90-386(f)(1)(B) which prescribes 100 square feet of private open space for 33 a one-bedroom, and 150 square feet of private open space for two- or more 34 bedrooms, with an average of 125 square feet respectively. The physical 35 circumstances applicable to the subject land is based on the availability of land 36 needed to develop the property in compliance with the City’s R-3 Multi-Family 37 Development Standards, while meeting the minimum density required of 18.1 to 38 30 dwelling units per acre.
39 In this case, 74.2% of the gross lot area (7.48 acres) is devoted to the construction 40 of roads and streetscape improvements, parking, landscaping, common open 41 space amenities, bioretention basins, and fire access drives, which collectively 42 pose a constraint to the building footprint, and as designed would yield 22 dwelling 43 units per acre, which is on the lower end of the density range. The applicant has 44 indicated that the unit sizes proposed for studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom 45 exceed the minimum required in a manner that is more functional and spacious. It