HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 3454 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) RESOLUTION NO. 3454
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF SAN JACINTO
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF
SAN JACINTO, CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE SAN JACINTO VALLEY MASTER
DRAINAGE PLAN AND THE SAN JACINTO REGIONAL AREA
DRAINAGE PLAN AMENDMENT; ADOPTING
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of San Jacinto ("City") has proposed to revise the existing
San Jacinto Master Drainage Plan ("SJMDP") and Northwest Hemet Master Drainage
Plan ("NW Hemet MDP"); prepare a new master drainage plan for an area to the west
and north of the existing plans; and then to consolidate the three plans into one new
plan: the San Jacinto Valley Master Drainage Plan ("SJV-MDP"); and also to amend the
San Jacinto Regional Area Drainage Plan ("SJR-ADP") to incorporate the newly
expanded and revised plan (collectively, the 'Project" or "proposed Project'); and
WHEREAS, the SJV-MDP proposes a system of open channels, underground
storm drains, and four detention basins, as well as to incorporate some existing
'u facilities; and
WHEREAS, an ADP is a financing mechanism used to ensure that all new
development pays its fair share for needed drainage facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Project area, which is approximately 27.4 square miles, includes
lands within the cities of San Jacinto and Hemet, as well as unincorporated Riverside
County, California; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project site is generally bounded by the San Jacinto
River to the north, Meridian Street to the east, Florida Avenue to the south, and Warren
Road to the west; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res.
Code §§ 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.
§§ 15000 et seq.) the City has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse
environmental impacts of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") on a Draft EIR on or
about April 14, 2009 and circulated the NOP until May 15, 2009; and
24438.40000 7623782.3 ]
WHEREAS, the Initial Study circulated with the NOP concluded that the
proposed Project would not result in significant impacts in the following areas: Geology
and Soils, Mineral Resources, Noise, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation and
Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. Therefore, these topics were not required to
be considered in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City solicited comments from potential responsible and trustee
agencies and members of the public; and
WHEREAS, the City received eight (8) written comments in response to the
NOP, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the
Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, on or about May 17, 2010, the City initiated a 45-day public review
period by filing a Notice of Completion and Availability with the State Office of Planning
and Research and releasing the Draft EIR for public review and comment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15086, the City consulted with
and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory
agencies, and others during the 45-day comment period; and
WHEREAS, the City received five (5) written comments during the public review
period for the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Final EIR, consisting of comments received
during the 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written
responses to those comments, and revisions and errata to the Draft EIR. For the
purposes of this Resolution, the "EIR" shall refer to the Draft EIR, as revised by the
Final EIR's errata section, together with the other sections of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set
forth the basis for its decision on the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and
the cities of San Jacinto and Hemet and Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District CEQA implementing procedures have been satisfied by the City in
the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant
environmental effects of the Proposed Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Proposed Project
sufficiently analyzes both the feasible Mitigation Measures necessary to avoid or
substantially lessen the Proposed Project's potential environmental impacts and a range
of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance
with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council
pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it
as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and
24438.40000'7623782.3 2
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the City finds are
less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 2 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially
significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant,
through the imposition of feasible Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and set forth
herein, are described in Section 3 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially
significant but which the City finds cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant,
despite the imposition of feasible Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and set forth
herein, are described in Section 4 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR and set
forth herein, are described in Section 5 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the significant and irreversible environmental changes that would
result from the Proposed Project, but which would be largely mitigated, and which are
identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 6 hereof; and
WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts resulting from the
Proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 7
hereof; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Proposed Project that might eliminate or reduce
significant environmental impacts are described in Section 8 hereof; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented
with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative
record, including the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all the
meetings and hearings, all of which is incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is
deemed adequate for the purpose of making decisions on the merits of this Proposed
Project; and
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City or
any additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new
information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA
Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
24438.40000 7623782.3
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JACINTO DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: FINDINGS
At a session assembled on January 14, 2013, the City Council determined that,
based on all of the evidence presented, including but not limited to the EIR, written and
oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and the submission of testimony from
the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts
associated with the Project are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; or
(2) potentially significant but will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance
through the identified Mitigation Measures; or (3) significant and cannot be fully
mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be substantially lessened to the
extent feasible by the identified Mitigation Measures.
SECTION 2: RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT
REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts
of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of
Mitigation Measures.
A. AESTHETICS
1. Scenic Resources Within a Scenic Highway
Impact: The proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway. (DEIR at ES-18; 3.1-7, 3.1-8.)
Supporting Explanation: The proposed facilities are located almost entirely
within road rights-of-way (ROW) and disturbed agricultural areas. (DEIR at p. 3.1-5.)
The SJV- MDP proposes three types of drainage features: underground storm drains,
open channels (exposed but flush with the finished grade), and open basins (in-ground
and surrounded by maximum six-foot high berms). (Ibid.) Since the proposed storm
drains will be underground facilities and once constructed will not be visible, there will
be no impact to scenic resources associated with the proposed storm drains. (Ibid.) The
open channels and basins will be visible after construction and will be the focus of the
discussion in this section. (Ibid.)
There are no State Designated Scenic Highways within the Project area. (Ibid.)
The closest State Designated Scenic Highway is Highway 243 (Bann ing/ldyllwiId
Panoramic Highway), which is located over seven and one-half miles northeast of the
Project's northeastern boundary. (Ibid.) Due to the distance of this highway from the
proposed Project area, impacts to State Designated Scenic Highways will be less than
significant. (Ibid.)
24438.40000'7623782.3 4
State Route 74 (Florida Avenue), as it passes east to west through Hemet, is
considered a State Eligible Scenic Highway. (Ibid.) State Route 74 traverses through
the southernmost portion of the Project area; however, there are no facilities proposed
within one-quarter mile of this State Eligible Scenic Highway. (Ibid.) The closest
proposed facilities are storm drains, which will not be visible after construction. (Ibid.)
Therefore, the SJV-MDP will not impact State Eligible Scenic Highways. (Ibid.)
Ramona Expressway, Gilman Springs Road, State Route 79, and Soboba Road,
which are located in proximity to the Project area, are designated County Eligible Scenic
Highways in the San Jacinto Valley Area Plan (COR SJVAP, Figure 9). (Ibid.) Gilman
Springs Road, State Route 79, and Soboba Road are not located within the boundaries
of the SJV-MDP, thus the proposed Project will not impact these highways. (Ibid.)
The Project will provide drainage infrastructure that could support urban
development in San Jacinto, portions of Hemet, and portions of Riverside County.
(DEIR at p. 3.1-7.) Such development will change the visual setting of the Project area.
(Ibid.) Therefore, the Project has the potential to indirectly damage scenic resources.
(Ibid.) With respect to potential impacts to scenic resources in the Project Area, all
future development projects will be subject to review and approval by the appropriate
agency (San Jacinto, Hemet, or Riverside County) and must be consistent with the
General Plan policies, ordinances, and regulations of the jurisdiction in which the
development project is located. (Ibid.) Since any development in San Jacinto, Hemet, or
Riverside County would be consistent with the general plans of those jurisdictions,
indirect impacts to scenic resources in San Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside County would
be less than significant through mandated governmental actions implementing the
respective general plans. (Ibid.)
B. AIR QUALITY
1. Violation of Air Quality Standard — Long-Term Impacts
Impact: The proposed Project's long-term impacts would not violate an air
quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation. (DEIR at ES-19; 3.3-38, 42 — 43.)
Supporting Explanation:
Long-Term Impacts — RST Analysis
Long-term air quality impacts would occur once the Project is in operation. (DEIR
at 3.3-35.) The majority of operational emissions would be from the infrequent visits by
vehicles driven by maintenance personnel. (Ibid.) This and any other maintenance-
related activity will not result in substantial sources of emissions when compared to the
existing maintenance routine of the current MDPs for the area. (Ibid.)
24438,40000 7623782.3
Long-Term Impacts — LST Analysis
The drainage facilities proposed by the SJV-MDP consist of the construction of
reinforced concrete boxes, reinforced concrete pipes, open concrete channels, open
earth channels, and earthen basins. (DEIR at 3.3-37.) The majority of the operational
emissions are in the form of mobile source emissions from infrequent visits by
maintenance vehicles, without any stationary sources present. (Ibid.) According to the
SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a Project, if
the Project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long
periods queuing and idling at the site; such as warehouse/transfer facilities. (Ibid.) The
proposed Project does not include such uses. (Ibid.) Therefore, due the lack of
stationary source emissions, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is
needed. (ibid.)
2. Net Increase in Criteria Air Pollutants
Impact: The proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). (DEIR
at ES-21; 3.3-41.)
Supporting Explanation:
Criteria Pollutants
In addressing cumulative effects for air quality, the AQMP utilizes approved
general plans; therefore, it is the most appropriate document to use in evaluating
cumulative impacts of the proposed Project. (DEIR at 3.3-38.) This is because the
AQMP evaluated air quality emissions for the entire Basin using a future development
scenario based on population projections and set forth a comprehensive program that
would lead the region, including the Project area, into compliance with all federal and
state air quality standards. (Ibid.) As described in the NOP for this Project, the Project
will not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the AQMP. (ibid.) The Project's
short-term construction emissions for NOx, PM-10, and PM-2.5 have been shown to be
significant on a regional level. (Ibid.) However, since it is only the Project's short-term
emissions that are above thresholds for NOx, PM-10, and PM-2.5, and the impact is
temporary (approximately six months in duration), the impact is not considered to have
a cumulatively considerable net increase on ozone and PM-10, which are non-
attainment in the region under both state and federal standards, and is considered less
than significant. (DEIR at 3.3-38 — 39.)
Greenhouse Gases (GHG)
The following analysis represents an attempt to estimate the proposed Project's
GHG emissions assuming Project build-out in 2012 primarily through the quantification
of CO2 emissions. (DEIR at 3.3-39.) CO2 emissions accounted for approximately 84
24438.400W 7623782.3 6
percent of the state's total GHG emissions in 2004. (Ibid.) Methane and nitrous oxide
accounted for 5.7 and 6.8 percent, respectively. (Ibid.) Therefore, while not intended to
be an all-inclusive inventory of overall GHG emissions from the Project; the estimation
of CO2 from the most important construction and operation related sources is illustrative
of much of the Project's contribution to GHG. (Ibid.)
It should be noted that the release of GHG in general and CO2 specifically into
the atmosphere is not of itself an adverse environmental affect. (Ibid.) It is the effect that
increased concentrations of GHG, including CO2, in the atmosphere has upon the
Earth's climate (i.e., climate change) and the associated consequences of climate
change that results in adverse environmental effects (e.g., sea level rise, loss of
snowpack, severe weather events). (Ibid.) Although air quality modeling can estimate
the proposed Project's incremental contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere, it is not
feasible to determine whether or how an individual Project's relatively small incremental
contribution (on a global scale) might translate into physical effects on the environment.
(Ibid.) Since the Earth's climate is determined by the complex interaction of different
components of the Earth and its atmosphere, it is not possible to discern whether the
presence or absence of GHG emitted by the proposed Project would result in any
measurable impact that would cause climate change. (Ibid.)
Short-Term Emissions: Construction Related Activities
The recently updated URBEMIS model calculates carbon dioxide emissions from
fuel usage by construction equipment and construction-related activities, like worker
trips, for the Project in tons per year (one ton equals 2,000 pounds). (DEIR at 3.3-40.)
The URBEMIS estimate does not analyze emissions from construction related electricity
or natural gas. (Ibid.) Construction related electricity and natural gas emissions vary
based on the amount of electric power used during construction and other unknown
factors which make them too speculative to quantify. (Ibid.) Life-cycle emissions
associated with the manufacture of building materials are also not quantified in this
analysis although they undoubtedly exist. (Ibid.) Quantification was not attempted
because of the large spatio-temporal variation in sources for building products that may
used to construct the SJV-MDP facilities and the consequent large uncertainty
associated with the resulting emissions. (Ibid.) For this reason, to attempt to quantify
life-cycle emissions of materials would be speculative. (Ibid.) This conclusion is
consistent with recent guidance on quantification of emissions for commercial projects
presented by the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association guidance on
CEQA and Climate Change (CAPCOA). (Ibid.)
An estimated total of 2,373 MtCO2 emissions from construction equipment will
occur in the four modeled scenarios. (Ibid.) The draft SCAQMD GHG threshold
guidance document released in October 2008 (SCAQMD 2008b) recommends that
construction emissions be amortized for a Project lifetime of 30-years to ensure that
GHG reduction measures address construction GHG emissions as part of the
operational reduction strategies. (Ibid.) However, as long-term emissions are
considered minimal for the proposed Project, and operational emissions were not
analyzed, this particular approach does not apply to this Project. (Ibid.)
24438.40000'7623782.3 7
Total Project CO2 Emissions
Although it is uncertain which screening level applies to infrastructure projects,
the proposed Project's CO2 emissions of 2,373 MtCO2 from construction emissions do
not exceed the SCAQMD recommended screening level of 3,000 MtCO2/year for
commercial projects, which is a lower that the level for industrial projects. (DEIR at 3.3-
41.) The CARB has yet to identify a quantitative threshold level for residential or
commercial projects and the threshold level for industrial projects is 7,000 MtCO2/year
from non-transportation sources. (Ibid.)
Due to the level of estimated emissions, no mitigation is required to reduce GHG.
(Ibid.) SCAQMD's recommendation of reducing the Project energy use and water use
even when the Project-related emissions are below the screening level does not apply
to this Project. (Ibid.) The operations of MDP facilities do not require energy usage.
(Ibid.) In addition, the Project transports storm water and does not include or require
water usage. (Ibid.)
The proposed Project's annual CO2 operational emissions will not exceed the
SCAQMD recommended Tier 3 screening level of significance for commercial or
industrial projects. (Ibid.) The SCAQMD additional requirements for energy and water
usage do not apply to the Project. (Ibid.) The CARB has not yet developed a
quantitative threshold for commercial projects and the currently recommended
performance standards for construction and operation of commercial projects also do
not apply to the SJV-MDP. (Ibid.) Therefore, the impact is considered less than
significant. (Ibid.)
3. Sensitive Receptors — Long-Term Emissions
Impact: The proposed Project's long-term impacts would not expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (DEIR at ES-22; 3.3-41.)
Supporting Explanation: Based on the LST analysis of the proposed
Project, the short-term construction of the SJV-MDP facilities will not result in any
localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors within the Project area for NOx or
CO, during construction of Project facilities; however, emissions of PM-10 and PM-2.5
during construction are above SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds. (DEIR at 3.3-
41.) Therefore, exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations
from short-term construction emissions is considered significant. (Ibid.) Due to the lack
of stationary source emissions; no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is
needed, and exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations from
long-term operational impacts is considered less than significant. (Ibid.)
24438.40000''7623782.3
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Conflict with Local Policy or Ordinance
Impact: The proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or
ordinance. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at ES-34; 3.4-38.)
Supporting Explanation: The Project does not propose any above-ground
structures that would require the removal of important natural resources and, through
compliance with the MSHCP, will conserve important resources such as mature trees,
rock outcroppings, hills, ridges, and other prominent land forms, as open space. (DEIR
at 3.4-39.) The location of specific SJV-MDP facilities is dictated by engineering and
hydraulic concerns. (Ibid.) The Project shall meet the goal of the City of Hemet and
comply with the policies of the SJVAP through compliance with the MSHCP. (Ibid.)
Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances
and impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
D. HYDROLOGYIWATER QUALITY
1. Violation of Water Quality Standards/Waste Discharge
Requirements During Construction
Impact: During Project construction, the proposed Project would not create
or contribute Urban Runoff that would violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's and County's municipal
separate stormwater sewer system permit. (DEIR at 3.7-24—25.)
Supporting Explanation: The proposed MDP facilities are intended to
improve stormwater and non-stormwater drainage by promoting groundwater recharge,
redirecting stormwater runoff from agricultural lands and other urban developments, and
removal of trash and debris from stormwater flows within the project area. (DEIR at 3.7-
24.) All facilities proposed as part of the MDP will be constructed by either, the City of
San Jacinto, City of Hemet, RCFCWCD, or future development projects within San
Jacinto and portions of Hemet and unincorporated Riverside County. (DEIR at 3.7-24 —
25.)
San Jacinto and Hemet are co-permitees with Riverside County in the NPDES
program, which is designed to reduce pollutant loads in urban runoff. (DEIR at 3.7-25. )
According to the NPDES permit requirements, all new development projects and
substantial rehabilitation efforts are required to incorporate BMPs. (Ibid.)
Implementation of BMPs in accordance with RCFCWCD's NPDES Municipal
Stormwater Management Program helps to protect surface water quality in the San
Jacinto River watershed. (Ibid.)
In order to reduce the discharge of expected pollutants into receiving waters
during construction of the proposed SJV-MDP facilities, the Cities or County or future
24438.40000',7623782.3 9
development projects in the Project area would be conditioned to construct portions of
the SJV-MDP facilities, and would be required to prepare a SWPPP in accordance with
the SWRCB General Permit for Construction Activities. (ibid.) The General Permit
requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP to identify an effective
combination of erosion control and sediment control BMPs to minimize or eliminate the
discharge of pollutants into receiving waters during construction. (Ibid.) In addition,
BMPs for managing sources of non-stormwater discharges and waste are required to
be identified in the SWPPP. (Ibid.) Examples of construction BMPs include silt fencing,
gravel bag berms, fiber rolls, and street sweeping. (Ibid.) Through implementation of the
SWPPP for future development projects in the project area, potential impacts to water
quality from project construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Ibid.)
No mitigation measures are necessary. (Ibid.)
2. Violation of Water Quality Standards/Waste Discharge
Requirements During Operation
Impact: After the project is completed, the proposed Project would not
create or contribute urban runoff that would violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater
sewer system permit. (DEIR at 3.7-25 —26.)
Supporting Explanation: The proposed SJV-MDP facilities have been
designed to improve stormwater and non-stormwater drainage within the project area by
promoting groundwater recharge, redirecting stormwater runoff from agricultural lands
and other urban developments, and removal of trash and debris from stormwater flows.
(DEIR at 3.7-25.) Studies have shown that conversion from pre-dominantly agricultural
to urban land-uses would likely improve or have no effect on water quality with respect
to sediments (Geosyntec, 2008). (ibid.) Most facilities proposed as part of the MDP will
not be constructed until such time as future development projects within the project area
approved. (Ibid.) As such, future development projects within the project area would be
conditioned by the City of San Jacinto, the City of Hemet, and/or RCFCWCD to
construct those MDP facilities that would be affected by that project. (ibid.) Therefore,
the project facilities would not be constructed until such time as future development
projects are approved. (Ibid.)
Conditions of approval for development projects would include the preparation of
a site-specific WQMP, which would provide for treatment of stormwater and non-
stormwater discharge through site design, source control, and/or treatment control
BMPs. (Ibid.) BMPs typically used to manage urban runoff include controlling roadway
and parking lot contaminants by installing filters with oil and grease absorbents at storm
drain inlets, cleaning parking lots on a regular basis, incorporating peak-flow reduction
and infiltration features (such as grass swales, infiltration trenches, and grass filter
strips) into landscaping, and implementing education programs. (DEIR at 3.7-25 — 26.)
Since future development projects within the project area will be required to comply with
the terms of the WQMP, post construction impacts to water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements are expected to be less than significant. (DEIR at 3.7-26.) No
mitigation measures are necessary. (Ibid.)
24438.40000`.7623782.3 10
3. Pollutant Discharge
Impact: The proposed Project would not provide for the discharge of
substantial additional sources of pollutants into Urban Runoff, including pollutants
discharged from delivery areas; loading docks; other areas where materials are stored,
vehicles or equipment are fueled or maintained, waste is handled, or hazardous
materials are handled or delivered; other outdoor work areas; or other sources. (DEIR at
3.7-26.)
Supporting Explanation: The proposed SJV-MDP and SJR-ADP will serve
as tools in planning and development of the Project area. (Ibid.) The SJV-MDP has
been designed to provide regional stormwater drainage within the Project area. The
SJR-ADP will provide an appropriate fee mechanism, based on the costs of the facilities
in the SJV-MDP. (Ibid.)
In order to reduce the discharge of pollutants associated with future development
projects within the boundaries of the SJV-MDP, future development project proponents
will be required to prepare site-specific SWPPPs in accordance with the SWRCB
General Permit for Construction Activities. (Ibid.) The General Permit requires the
preparation and implementation of a site-specific SWPPP, to identify an effective
combination of erosion control and sediment control BMPs to minimize or eliminate the
discharge of pollutants into receiving waters. (Ibid.) In addition, BMPs for managing
sources of non-stormwater discharges and waste are required to be identified in the
SWPPP. (Ibid.)
Future development projects within the Project area will also be required to
prepare a site specific WQMP that would identify BMPs to ensure that water quality of
downstream receiving waters are not degraded following development. (Ibid.) As
indicated in the WQMP, it is imperative that development projects minimize changes to
hydrology to ensure that post-development runoff rates and velocities from a site do not
adversely impact downstream erosion, sedimentation or stream habitat. (Ibid.) The
goals of site design techniques identified in a site-specific WQMP is to reduce the
pollutant loads from developed areas, and achieve post development runoff flow rates,
volumes, velocities, and duration that prevent significant increase in downstream
erosion compared to the pre-development condition, and prevent significant adverse
impacts to stream habitat during the 2-year and 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event. (Ibid.)
Future development projects approved within the Project area have the potential
to provide substantial pollutants to urban runoff within the Project area. (Ibid.) However,
these development projects will be required to comply with the provisions of the
Riverside County SWPPP and WQMP, minimizing the potential for substantial
additional pollutants in urban runoff. (Ibid.) As such, the project would not directly result
in substantial sources of pollutants into urban runoff. (Ibid.) Therefore, impacts are
anticipated to be less than significant. (Ibid.) No mitigation measures are necessary.
(Ibid.)
2443 8.40000`J 623 782.3
4. Adverse Effect on Beneficial Uses of Waters
Impact: The proposed Project would not discharge pollutants in Urban
Runoff so that one or more Beneficial Uses of receiving waters are adversely affected.
"Beneficial Uses" include all uses of water necessary for the survival or well-being of
man, plants and wildlife. (DEIR at 3.7-26 — 27.)
Supporting Explanation: Seven beneficial uses have been designated for
surface water bodies in the vicinity of the project site. (DEIR at 3.7-27.) Since Canyon
Lake is listed as impaired for nutrients and pathogens; and Lake Elsinore is listed as
impaired for nutrients, organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen, PCBs, and unknown
toxicity, all future development projects approved within the project area will be required
to reduce the potential for discharge of pollutants that would further impair downstream
receiving waters, including Canyon Lake and Lake Elsinore. (Ibid.) As such, future
development projects would be conditioned to prepare a site-specific SWPPP and
WQMP. The selection of BMPs that treat urban runoff for nutrients, pathogens, organic
enriched/low dissolved oxygen, PCBs, and unknown toxicity will be required. (Ibid.)
The proposed SJV-MDP facilities have the potential to convey pollutants
associated with agricultural activities and residential, commercial and industrial
developments. (Ibid.) However, the facilities shall be constructed either by RCFCWCD
or by future development projects within the project area. (Ibid.) Implementation of the
proposed SJV-MDP would facilitate the approval of future developments within the
Project area, which may result in the discharge of pollutants in urban runoff that could
adversely affect receiving waters. (Ibid.) However, future development project will be
required to comply with the provisions of the NPDES permit and prepare SWPPPs and
WQMPs incorporating appropriate BMPS; therefore, potential impacts to receiving
waters would be mitigated at the time future developments are approved. Impacts are
anticipated to be less than significant. (Ibid.) No mitigation measures are necessary.
(Ibid.)
5. Harm to Biological Integrity of Waters
Impact: The proposed Project would not discharge stormwater so that
significant harm is caused to the biological integrity of waterways or water bodies.
(DEIR at 3.7-27 —28.)
Supporting Explanation: Currently within the Project area, stormwater from
low flow events ponds within low areas and agricultural and roadside ditches or is
conveyed via sheet flows or agricultural and roadside ditches. (DEIR at 3.7-27.) The
general drainage pattern within the Project area is in a northwest direction, towards the
San Jacinto River, the natural low point in the valley. Regionally the SJV-MDP facilities
follow the existing drainage pattern of the project area. (Ibid.)
Sensitive plant species previously identified in the Project area are located within
the 100-year floodplain of the San Jacinto River. (DEIR at 3.7-27 — 28.) The proposed
Project will not alter the velocity, volume, or seasonal flow of the San Jacinto River 100-
24438.40000'.7623782.3 12
year floodplain. (DEIR at 3.7-28.) Thereby the proposed Project will not alter the historic
floodplain of the river and habitat for these species. (Ibid.)
Although development within the SJV-MDP area would result in changes to the
existing local hydrology, areas that currently pond or receive sheet flow would continue
to do so in the small events at the local level. (Ibid.) It would be during the larger storm
events that storm water would be collected and conveyed through the MDP facilities.
(Ibid.) Vertical hydrology (rainfall) is predominantly responsible for the maintenance of
vernal pools, and existing plant populations in the area. (Ibid.) Any existing vernal pools
and associated sensitive species would continue to receive local runoff and rainfall.
(Ibid.) Therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to have a significant indirect
impact on the biological integrity of the San Jacinto River or any other water body.
(Ibid.)
The SJV-MDP facilities have potential to discharge stormwater flows to
downstream receiving water bodies, thus potentially affecting the biological integrity of
those water bodies. (Ibid.) However, future development projects within the project area
will be required to comply with all provisions of the NPDES permit program, including
the preparation of a SWPPP and WQMP, thus potential impacts to receiving waters
would be mitigated at the time future developments are approved. (Ibid.) Therefore,
impacts are less than significant. (Ibid.) No mitigation measures are necessary. (Ibid.)
6. Violation of Water Quality Standard/Discharge Requirement
Impact: The proposed Project would not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements. (DEIR at 3.7-28 — 30.)
Supporting Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project will not
add significant amounts of impervious surfaces to the project area, as the proposed
facilities will be underground stormdrain pipelines, earthen and concrete-lined
trapezoidal channels, and earthen basins. (DEIR at 3.7-28.) The SJV-MDP would
establish a comprehensive stormwater drainage system in the Project area, to provide
adequate drainage for the Project area to support buildout in accordance with land uses
identified in the San Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside County General Plans. (Ibid.)
The proposed project will reduce flooding from stormwater and urban runoff
currently experienced in the project area. The proposed drainage facilities themselves
will not generate or create a significant increase in runoff or stormwater pollutants.
(DEIR at 3.7-28 — 29.) The project detention basins will allow for some sediment
transported in stormwater runoff to settle out over time, and will attenuate peak-flow
rates from storm events. (DEIR at 3.7-29.) Activities relating to the construction of MDP
facilities will be regulated by the RWQCB under the NPDES permit program at the time
future development projects are approved within the project area. (Ibid.)
The RWQCB may also regulate portions of the SJV-MDP under the Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act or Section 401 of the CWA. (Ibid.) Stormwater
pollution prevention measures will be identified and must be followed to reduce or
24438.40000.7623782.3 13
eliminate discharge of pollutants to surface water from stormwater and non-stormwater
discharges from, not only the construction of the SJV-MDP facilities, but the
implementation of future approved development projects within the project area, as well.
(Ibid.)
Specific water quality impacts will be further mitigated at the time of facility
construction through the ongoing compliance with existing water quality regulatory
programs. (Ibid.) The proposed facilities shall be constructed in conformance with the
RWQCB, NPDES Permit R8-2002-001. (Ibid.) This permit regulates flood control
facilities operated by the RCFCWCD, among others, within the Santa Ana River
Watershed. (Ibid.) The Permit requires the RCFCWCD to conduct public education,
monitoring, illicit connection/illegal discharge detection and removal, maintenance
activities, and coordination with other MS4 operators to ensure that pollutants
discharging from MS4 systems are mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. (Ibid.)
Facilities constructed under the proposed Project would be required to comply with this
permit. (Ibid.)
In addition, any proposed facilities that impact "waters of the United States" or
"waters of the State" will be regulated by the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA or
the State's Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act. (Ibid.) The Project also
incorporates unlined reaches of channels and basins, which can serve to attenuate
peak-flow rates and allow for infiltration of stormwater. (Ibid.) Additional water quality
control measures may be implemented at the time of construction in order to comply
with Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements established by the RWQCB within
the watershed. (Ibid.)
In light of the above water quality regulatory programs already in place, which the
proposed Project and future development projects within the Project area will have to
comply with, impacts to water quality are anticipated to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Substantial population increase is anticipated in San Jacinto, Hemet, and
Riverside County. This increase in population would increase the quantity of urban
runoff generated, decrease the quality of treated wastewater, and increase the need for
effluent disposal. (Ibid.) The effluent, when discharged into a stream, or other surface
water body, has the potential to degrade the quality of the water in the receiving water
body. (DEIR at 3.7-29 — 30.)Additionally, stormwater runoff from urban areas contains a
variety of organic and inorganic substances that may reduce the quality of water
resources. (DEIR at 3.7-30.)
Through the development review process, San Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside
County comply with various statutory requirements necessary to achieve regional water
quality objectives and protect groundwater and surface waters from polluted stormwater
runoff. (Ibid.) As a Co-Permittee with the Riverside County under the MS4 permit, San
Jacinto and Hemet are responsible for eliminating illegal discharges and connections
into storm drains that ultimately discharge into surface waters. (Ibid.) Additionally, San
Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside County are required to consider water quality impacts
24438.40000 7623782.3 14
during review of development project proposals to ensure that appropriate structural
and non-structural BMPs are incorporated into project design, construction, and
operation phases to reduce contaminants in stormwater discharges, consistent with
requirements of the NPDES permit. (Ibid.) Because of existing NPDES permitting
requirements potential indirect impacts related to water quality remain less than
significant. (Ibid.)
Metropolitan has expressed concern for placement of Project facilities in
proximity to their facilities because of potential impacts to the water quality within them.
(Ibid.) In order to avoid potential impacts to water quality within any of Metropolitan's
regional water conveyance pipelines, which are located within the project boundary,
future development projects within the SJV-MDP project boundary shall be required to
comply with all of Metropolitan's Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities,
Fee Properties, And/or Easements of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California. (Ibid.) As such, any facilities constructed in proximity to Metropolitan's
facilities, will be conditioned to submit detailed plans to Metropolitan for their review and
approval. (Ibid.) Therefore, impacts to water quality within Metropolitan's facilities are
anticipated to be less than significant. (Ibid.) No mitigation measures are necessary.
(Ibid.)
7. Alter Drainage Patterns
Impact: The proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or
off site. (DEIR at 3.7-30 — 31.)
Supporting Explanation: Currently within the Project area storm water from
low flow events ponds within low areas and agricultural and roadside ditches or is
conveyed via sheet flows or agricultural and roadside ditches. (DEIR at 3.7-30.) The
general drainage pattern within the project area is in a northwest direction, towards the
San Jacinto River, the natural low point in the valley. (Ibid.) Regionally the SJV-MDP
facilities follow the existing drainage pattern of the Project area. (Ibid.)
On a local level, construction of SJV-MDP facilities will alter the existing drainage
pattern by detaining and channelizing sheet flows in the Project area in SJV-MDP
facilities. (Ibid.) This change in the local drainage pattern is an inherent part of the
Project; however, the Project is designed to improve drainage, and will not result in
substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. (DEIR at 3.7-30 — 31.)
Implementation of the Project would not result in significant impervious area, as
the proposed facilities will be constructed primarily within existing and proposed road
right-of-way, and basins are comprised of earthen material for attenuation of peak-flow
rates and increased percolation. (DEIR at 3.7-31.) The proposed trapezoidal channels
are planned to be earthen or concrete-lined. (Ibid.) The concrete-lined trapezoidal
channels will add impervious area to the overall project area. However, implementation
24438.40000',7623782.3 15
of the Project would improve stormwater and non-stormwater drainage within the
Project area by channelizing and directing flows in the Project area. (Ibid.)
Impervious surfaces, including paved areas such as parking lots, roadways, and
building rooftops decrease the area in which stormwater runoff can infiltrate, potentially
resulting in decreased absorption and increased runoff. (Ibid.) Future development
projects in the project area would be conditioned to comply with the provisions of the
Riverside County WQMP which includes site design requirements to minimize directly
connected impervious areas. (Ibid.) This WQMP requirement will reduce the overall
impervious areas within the Project area, and thus reduce the overall amount of surface
runoff from urban areas. (Ibid.)
The proposed SJV-MDP has been designed to accommodate 100-year
stormwater flows from the Project area; therefore, after implementation of the SJV-MDP
will not result in peak flows exiting the site that would result in flooding on or off site.
(Ibid.) Impacts are considered to be less than significant. (Ibid.) No mitigation measures
are necessary. (Ibid.)
8. Erosion
Impact: The proposed Project would not significantly increase erosion on
or off site. (DEIR at 3.7-31.)
Supporting Explanation:The proposed facilities would be constructed and
phased to be available at such time as future development projects in the Project area
are approved. (Ibid.) Future developments would be conditioned to comply with the
provisions of the Riverside County SWPPP and WQMP. (Ibid.)
The SWPPP includes provisions to identify potential on-site pollutants, identify
and implement an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control
measures to reduce or eliminate discharge of pollutants to surface water from
stormwater and non-stormwater discharges during construction activities. (Ibid.) The
site-specific WQMP must describe the BMPs that will be implemented and maintained
throughout the life of a project, and is used by property owners, facility operators,
tenants, facility employees, maintenance contractors, etc., to prevent and minimize
water pollution that can be caused by stormwater or urban runoff. (Ibid.) BMP selection
includes site design measures to minimize directly connected impervious areas, source
control measure to minimize urban runoff potential, and/or treatment control measures
to minimize urban runoff pollutant loads. (Ibid.) Therefore, through compliance with the
NPDES permitting program and incorporation of appropriate BMPs, impacts are
expected to be less than significant. (Ibid.) No mitigation measures are necessary.
(Ibid.)
24438.40000`7623782.3 16
9. Alteration of Runoff Flow
Impact: The proposed Project would not significantly alter the flow velocity
or volume of stormwater runoff in a manner than results in environmental harm. (DEIR
at 3.7-32.)
Supporting Explanation: Currently the Project area experiences periodic
flooding due to the relatively flat topography of the area and the inadequacy of existing
stormwater drainage facilities. (Ibid.) The proposed facilities have been designed to
attenuate peak-flow rates and create a more efficient stormwater drainage system.
(Ibid.) The potential increase of the flow velocity within the Project area will be
attenuated through the Project basins; therefore, impacts from increased flow velocity
are less than significant. (Ibid.)
Many of the SJV-MDP facilities would be constructed by future development
projects within the Project area. (Ibid.) As such, future development projects would be
conditioned to prepare a site-specific WQMP, which includes site design requirements
to minimize directly connected impervious surfaces. (Ibid.) This requirement to reduce
directly connected impervious surfaces will allow for percolation to occur throughout the
Project area, as future projects are approved, thus maintaining a more natural runoff
rate, once the SJV-MDP is fully constructed. (Ibid.) The volume of water within the
proposed drainage facilities is not anticipated to increase significantly because future
project proponents will be required to comply with the provisions of the Riverside
County WQMP, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. (Ibid.)
10. Placement within 100 Year Flood Area
Impact: The proposed Project would not place structures within a 100 year
flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows. (DEIR at 3.7-32.)
Supporting Explanation: Portions of the proposed SJV-MDP will be
constructed within mapped 100-year flood hazard areas. (Ibid.) However, placement of
these flood control facilities within 100-year flood hazard areas is needed due to the
relatively flat topography of the project area, and to contain the 100-year storm flows.
(Ibid.) The proposed MDP facilities will re-direct sheet flows across the Project area into
basins, open channels, and underground storm drains and convey these flows towards
the San Jacinto River to the north of the Project. (Ibid.) When completed, the proposed
drainage system will provide 100-year protection and eliminate the major flood hazards
in the project area. (Ibid.)
Additionally, RCFCWCD is in the design stage for the San Jacinto River Levee
Stage 4 project, which, once completed, will significantly alter the existing 100-year
flood plain along the northern boundary of the project area. (Ibid.) Since construction of
the proposed MDP facilities in conjunction with the San Jacinto River Levee Stage 4
Project would alleviate flooding potential within the project area, impacts are considered
less than significant. (Ibid.) No mitigation measures are necessary. (Ibid.)
24438.40000''.7623782.3 17
SECTION 3: RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED
TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council hereby finds that Mitigation Measures have been identified in
the EIR and this Resolution which will avoid or substantially lessen the following
potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The
potentially significant impacts and the Mitigation Measures which will reduce them to a
less than significant level are as follows:
A. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
1. Candidate, Sensitive or Special Status Species
Impact: The proposed Project would have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat modifications, on a 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
However, with mitigation, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 3.4-22 —26.)
Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would
reduce Project impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special status species to a less than
significant level. (DEIR at 3.4-40 — 41.)
MM Bio 1: In order to avoid violation of the MBTA and California Fish and
Game Code site preparation activities (removal of trees and
vegetation) shall be avoided, to the greatest extent possible, during
the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31) of
potentially occurring native and migratory bird species.
If site-preparation activities are proposed during the
nesting/breeding season (February 1 to August 31), a pre-activity
field survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the
issuance of grading permits, for private development projects, or
prior to construction for public agency contracts, to determine if
active nests of species protected by the MBTA or the California
Fish and Game Code are present in the construction zone. If active
nests are not located within the Project area and appropriate buffer,
500 feet of an active listed species or raptor nest, 300 feet of other
sensitive or protected bird nests (non-listed), or within 100 feet of
sensitive or protected songbird nests, construction may be
conducted during the nesting/breeding season. However, if active
nests are located during the pre-activity field survey, no grading or
heavy equipment activity shall take place within at least 500 feet of
an active listed species or raptor nest, 300 feet of other sensitive or
protected (under MBTA or California Fish and Game Code) bird
nests (nonlisted), or within 100 feet of sensitive or protected
songbird nests until the nest is no longer active. (DEIR at 3.4-40.)
24438.40000 7623782.3 18
MM Bio 2: Facility-specific habitat assessments and focused surveys for
burrowing owls will be conducted within burrowing owl survey
areas. A pre-construction survey for resident burrowing owls will
also be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to
commencement of grading and construction activities within those
portions of the Project site containing suitable burrowing owl
habitat. If ground-disturbing activities in these areas are delayed or
suspended for more than 30 days after the pre-construction survey,
the area shall be resurveyed for owls. Take of active nests shall be
avoided. The pre-construction survey and any relocation activity will
be conducted in accordance with MSHCP instructions and/or
guidelines. (Ibid.)
MM Bio 6: Within areas of suitable habitat associated with the Narrow
Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) and Criteria Area
Plant Species Survey Area (CAPSSA), facilityspecific focused
plants surveys will be required. Including the smooth tarplant
mapped as part of this study, the MSHCP requires at least 90
percent avoidance of areas providing long-term conservation value
for the NEPSSA and CAPSSA target species. If avoidance is not
feasible, then individual projects will require the approval of a
DBESP including appropriate mitigation, i.e., on-site or off-site
enhancement, restoration, establishment (creation), preservation,
payment into habitat mitigation banks or in lieu fee programs, or a
combination of one or more of these options. Furthermore, the
smooth tarplant mapped within Cell Group V is expected to be
required for conservation as part of the Cell Group V criteria. (DEIR
at 3.4-41.)
MM Bio 7: Focused surveys shall be conducted within potentially suitable
habitat for Chaparral sand-verbena and South coast salt scale by a
qualified biologist during the flowering season of these species and
prior to construction activities. If special status plant species are
found to be present in the footprint, further measures as
recommended by a qualified biologist shall be taken to avoid or
minimize adverse project effects to these species and their habitat.
If avoidance is not feasible, then individual projects will require the
approval of a DBESP including appropriate mitigation. (Ibid.)
MM Bio 8: Focused surveys shall be conducted within potentially suitable
habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and Los Angeles
pocket mouse by a qualified biologist during the appropriate season
of these species and prior to construction activities. If these species
are found to be present in the footprint, occupied habitat shall be
fenced and avoided. If occupied habitat cannot be avoided, further
24438.40000'7623782.3 19
measures as recommended by a qualified biologist and in
consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game, shall
to be taken to avoid or minimize adverse project effects to these
species and their habitat. (DEIR at 3.4-41 — 42.)
Supporting Explanation:
Special-Status Plant Species
Areas that support a moderate to high occurrence potential for special status
plants are located in westem/central portions of the Project area. (DEIR at 3.4-22.)
These areas generally have more potential to support special-status resources due to
the presence of suitable habitat. (Ibid.)
Twelve of the proposed linear facilities, Line Y, Lat Y-2 through Lat Y-11, and
Line V are partially or entirely located within the Criteria Area Plant Species Survey
Area (CAPSSA) 3. (Ibid.) Several special-status plant species have low to high potential
for occurrence along alignments within the Project area. (Ibid.) Plant species with a high
potential to occur on site include Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis)
and Coulter's goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri). (Ibid.) Locations of smooth
tarplant were detected along the alignments including Line V, Line Y and Lat Y-4
through Lat Y-7). (Ibid.) Approximately 25,000 tarplant individuals were counted within
the alignments themselves, in addition to tens of thousands more in areas adjacent to
the survey alignment. (Ibid.) The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) shows
records of smooth tarplant adjacent to Lat Y-1, Lat Y-2, Lat Y-4, Line Z, Line E, and Line
Y. (Ibid.) The CNDDB also shows records of Coulter's goldfields within the vicinity of
Line Z. (Ibid.)
Implementation of the proposed Project would result in direct impacts to two
special-status plant species not covered by the MSHCP, but listed by the California
Native Plant Society as list 1 B.1, Chaparral sand-verbena and South coast saltscale,
16.3. (DEIR at 3.4-24.) Plants in List 1B are rare, threatened, or endangered in
California or elsewhere. (Ibid.) Those with the 0.1 threat-code extension, such as
Chaparral sand-verbena, are seriously endangered in California. (Ibid.) Plants with the
0.3 extension are not very endangered in California. (Ibid.) Due to the disturbed nature
of the pipelines and alignment, and the limited area of linear construction impact, the
proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant loss of habitat for Chaparral
sand-verbena or South coast saltscale. (Ibid.) To further identify the potential direct
impacts to these species (number of plants and/or area impacted), focused surveys are
required for these species during their flowering season and prior to construction. (Ibid.)
If these plants occur within the construction footprint, impacts to these species may be
considered significant. (Ibid.) However, with implementation of MM Bio 7, impacts to
special status plant species are considered less than significant. (Ibid.)
Approximately half of the Project area is located within the Narrow Endemic Plant
Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) 3. (Ibid.) However, no narrow endemic plant species
were observed within the Project area during the surveys. (Ibid.) The majority of the
24438.40000 7623782.3 20
narrow endemic plant species within survey area 3 have a low potential for occurrence
within the Project area. (ibid.) Neither Munz's onion (Allium munzii) nor many-stemmed
dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) are expected to occur within the Project area at all due to
lack of suitable habitat. (Ibid.)
Therefore, the proposed Project is anticipated to result in direct impacts to
smooth tarplant and Coulter's goldfields. (Ibid.) The proposed Project is not anticipated
to result in direct impacts to Munz's onion or many-stemmed dudleya. (Ibid.) However,
project-specific surveys would be required during the appropriate time of the year to
determine the presence/absence of all Narrow Endemic Plants and Criteria Area Plants
within the construction footprint prior to installation of facilities. (Ibid.) Implementation of
MM Bio 6, which outlines compliance with Section 6 of the MSHCP, is required to
reduce potential impacts to sensitive plant species to less than significant levels. (Ibid.)
Currently within the Project area, stormwater from low-flow events ponds within
low areas and agricultural and roadside ditches or is conveyed via sheet flows or
agricultural and roadside ditches. (Ibid.) The general drainage pattern within the Project
area is in a northwest direction, towards the San Jacinto River, which is the natural low
point in the valley. (Ibid.) Regionally, the MDP facilities follow the existing drainage
pattern of the Project area. (Ibid.)
Sensitive plant species identified in the SJV-MDP Project area are located within
the 100-year floodplain of the San Jacinto River. (ibid.) The proposed Project will not
alter the velocity, volume, or seasonal flow of the San Jacinto River 100-year floodplain.
(ibid.) Thereby, the proposed Project will not alter the historic floodplain of the river and
habitat for associated species. (Ibid.) Although development within the SJV-MDP
Project area would result in changes to the existing local hydrology, local hydrology will
not be significantly impacted by construction of the MDP facilities alone. (Ibid.) Areas
that currently pond or receive sheet flow, would continue to do so during small storm
events at the local level. (Ibid.) It would be during the larger storm events that
stormwater would be collected and conveyed through the MDP facilities. (ibid.) Vertical
hydrology (rainfall) is predominantly responsible for the maintenance of vernal pools,
and existing plant populations in the area. (DEIR at 3.4-24 - 25.) Any existing vernal
pools and associated sensitive species would continue to receive local runoff and
rainfall. (DEIR at 3.4-25.) Therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to have a
significant indirect impact on sensitive plant species in the SJV-MDP Project area or
downstream in the San Jacinto River floodplain. (Ibid.)
Special-Status Wildlife Species
Despite the fact that the Project area is located in a predominately agricultural
and disturbed environment, special-status native species, primarily birds, may occur in
less than optimal and/or disturbed conditions, and may forage over agricultural habitats
present in the Project area. (Ibid.) The proposed Project would impact disturbed habitats
potentially suitable for several species of raptors (e.g., white-tailed kite, northern harrier,
Cooper's hawk, golden eagle, and burrowing owl). (Ibid.) Because most potentially-
24438.40000'7623782.3 21
occurring raptor species are very widespread and roam over large areas of foraging
territory, these losses would amount to a relatively small, incremental reduction of
seasonal foraging habitat and occasional use areas. (ibid.) Impacts to disturbed
foraging habitats would not constitute significant adverse impacts to any of the affected
species, locally or regionally. (Ibid.)
The SJV-MDP Project area contains trees, shrubs, ground cover, and structures
that provide suitable habitat for nesting migratory birds, including raptors. (ibid.) If any
vegetation or structures are to be removed during the nesting season (February 1 to
August 31), facility-specific nesting bird surveys shall be conducted first to determine
the presence/absence of active nests. (Ibid.) If active nests are identified, appropriate
avoidance buffers should be established in the nesting activity has completed, and
fledglings have left the nest and are no longer dependent on the parents (see MM Bio
1). (Ibid.) Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM Bio 1 is required to reduce potential
impacts to sensitive and protected bird species to less than significant levels. (Ibid.)
Several special-status wildlife species are common throughout the region and
were determined to have a moderate to high potential to occur. (Ibid.) Many of these
species are considered to be too widespread and common to warrant listing as
threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or CDFG. (Ibid.)
Potential impacts to these species (e.g., loggerhead shrike, California homed lark, San
Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, and prairie falcon) would include a small, temporary loss
of breeding and/or seasonal foraging habitat locally, neither of which is considered
significant. (Ibid.) Individuals present within the Project area would be displaced by
construction activities. (ibid.) Following construction, many species may continue to
forage within the proposed earthen channels and basins. (Ibid.) Given the relative
abundance of these species in other areas locally, the temporary loss of highly
disturbed habitats and an undetermined, but expected low number of individuals
displaced, would not constitute a significant adverse impact to these species on a local
or regional basis or to the species or their overall range. (DEIR at 3.4-25 - 26.)
Compliance with the MSHCP will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. (DEIR
at 3.4-26.)
Portions of the Project area may provide suitable nesting habitat for burrowing
owls. Focused surreys for burrowing owl were conducted on July 31, and August 7, 81
11, 12, 20, 22, and August 26, 2008. (ibid.) No burrowing owls were identified within the
facility alignments or basin locations. Though no burrowing owls were detected during
the focused surveys, much of the Project area has a moderate to high probability to
support owls, whether breeding pairs, resident individuals, or transient individuals.
Future habitat assessments and focused surveys (if suitable habitat/burrows are
present) shall be required for SJV-MDP facilities located within the MSHCP burrowing
owl survey area. (Ibid.) Construction activities could adversely impact burrowing owls if
active nests are located near the proposed facilities at the time of construction. (Ibid.)
Construction noise and activity may disrupt normal breeding and nesting patterns or
activities of these species. (Ibid.) Mitigation measures are required to reduce potential
impacts from the Project construction to less than significant levels (see MM Bio 2).
24438.40000 7623782.3 22
San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) (Dipodomys merriami parvus) was
determined to have a low potential to occur within the Project area. Los Angeles pocket
mouse (LAPM) (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) was also determined to have a
low potential to occur within the Project area. (Ibid.)
The extreme northern end of Line K terminates at the edge of the mammal
survey area for LAPM and SBKR; however, the rest of the facility alignments are
located outside of the mammal survey areas. (Ibid.)
With implementation of mitigation measure MM Bio 8, survey and conservation
requirements pursuant to Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, potential impacts from the
proposed Project are considered less than significant. (Ibid.)
Based on compliance with the MSHCP and with the implementation of the
mitigation measures identified above, potential adverse impacts associated with special
status species and their habitat are reduced to a less than significant level. (DEIR at
3.4-42.)
2. Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community
Impact: The proposed Project would have a substantial adverse effect on
a riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. However, with mitigation, impacts would be less than
significant. (DEIR at ES-28; 3.4-26 —27.)
Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would
reduce Project impacts on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community to a less
than significant level. (DEIR at 3.4-40 — 41.)
MM Bio 4: The project-specific mapping of riparian and unvegetated riverine
features will be required pursuant to Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.
For areas not excluded as artificially created, the MSHCP requires
100 percent avoidance of riparian/riverine areas. If avoidance is not
feasible, then individual projects will require the approval of a
DBESP including appropriate mitigation, i.e., on-site or off-site
enhancement, restoration, establishment (creation), preservation,
payment into habitat mitigation banks or in lieu fee programs, or a
combination of one or more of these options, to offset the loss of
functions and values as they pertain to the MSHCP covered
species. Riparian vegetation will also need to be evaluated for the
least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western
yellow-billed cuckoo. If suitable habitat is present, focused surveys
for the species will be required. If avoidance is not feasible, then
individual projects will require the approval of a DBESP including
appropriate mitigation, i.e., on-site or off-site enhancement,
24438.40000 7623782.3 23
restoration, establishment (creation), preservation, payment into
habitat mitigation banks or in lieu fee programs, or a combination of
one or more of these options. (DEIR at 3.4-40 —41.)
MM Bio 5: The project-specific mapping of vernal pools will be required
pursuant to Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. As noted above, vernal
pools (or similar seasonal ponding alkali playa areas) are expected
to occur at least in the area comprising Cell Group V, but have the
potential to occur elsewhere within the Project area. For areas not
excluded as artificially created, the MSHCP requires 100 percent
avoidance of vernal pools. If avoidance is not feasible, then
individual projects will require the approval of a DBESP including
appropriate mitigation to offset the loss of functions and values as
they pertain to the MSHCP covered species. Vernal pools and
other seasonal ponding depressions will also need to be evaluated
for Riverside and Vernal pool fairy shrimp. (DEIR at 3.4-41.)
Supporting Explanation: Approximately 6.38 acres of riparian habitat were
mapped within the Project alignments (see Figure 3.4-B), and contained native riparian
vegetation including willow (Salix spp.), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), and Freemont's
cottonwood (Populus fremontii). (DEIR at 3.4-26.) Much of the riparian vegetation
occurs in scattered isolated patches, though at least one of the surveyed alignments
terminates at the edge of extensive riparian habitat associated with the San Jacinto
River. (Ibid.) The remaining majority of the SJV-MDP alignments extend through
disturbed areas supporting a predominance of non-native and native ruderal vegetation,
including non-native grasses, though these areas are often interspersed with remnants
of alkali playa vegetation. (Ibid.) Some of the remnant alkali playa areas exhibited
evidence of seasonal ponding, though at the time of surveys there was not enough
vegetation to adequately evaluate the features as vernal pools. (Ibid.)
The riparian areas that were mapped ranged from roadside/agricultural ditches,
to ponds and basins, but also included the edge of extensive riparian habitat associated
with the San Jacinto River. (DEIR at 3.4-27.) Some of the mapped areas qualify as
MSHCP Riparian Areas, though others would likely be excluded due to their artificial
nature. (Ibid.) Facility-specific mapping would be required to determine which areas may
be subject to MSHCP requirements, and which may not (see MM Bio 4 and 5). (Ibid.)
Vertical hydrology (rainfall) is predominantly responsible for the maintenance of
vernal pools, and existing plant populations in the area. (Ibid.) Any existing vernal pools
and associated sensitive species would continue to receive local runoff and rainfall. If
suitable habitat for species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP (least Bell's vireo,
southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellowbilled cuckoo, Riverside fairy shrimp,
Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp, and vernal pool fairy shrimp) occurs within the
proposed Project area and Project design does not incorporate avoidance of the
suitable habitat, avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented in
accordance with the MSHCP species-specific objectives for the species (see MM Bio 4
and 5). (Ibid.)
24438.40000'•7623782.3 24
The Project will not result in any de-watering of any potential vernal or riparian
areas because it will not alter the velocity, volume, or seasonal flow of the San Jacinto
River 100-year floodplain. (Ibid.) Although development within the SJV-MDP Project
area would result in changes to the existing local hydrology, local hydrology will not be
significantly impacted by construction of the MDP facilities alone. (Ibid.) Areas that
currently pond or receive sheet flow would continue to do so during small storm events
at the local level. It would be during the larger storm events that stormwater would be
collected and conveyed through the MDP facilities. (Ibid.)
The biologists mapped "riparian" vegetation throughout the MDP study area,
regardless of whether it qualified as MSHCP riparian vegetation or should be excluded
from that designation (e.g., artificial creation). (Ibid.) It was determined from the general
biological assessment conducted in August 2008 that riparian habitat in the Project area
is mostly associated with the San Jacinto River, occurring along Lines 3, 4, 5, 6, E, H, J,
and Z. (Ibid.) Additionally, RCFCWCD is in the design stage for the San Jacinto River
Levee Stage 4 Project, which once completed, will significantly alter the existing 100-
year flood plain along the northern boundary of the Project area. (Ibid.) Hydrological and
biological impacts of the San Jacinto Levee Project are not part of this Project, and will
be addressed in the San Jacinto River Levee DEIR. (Ibid.) The SJV-MDP will ultimately
connect to the Levee Project via parallel channels constructed as part of the Levee
Project, and will not disturb any biologically sensitive areas within the vicinity of the San
Jacinto River area. (Ibid.) Compliance with mitigation measures MM Bio 4 and 5, and
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP reduces potential impacts to riparian habitats/vernal pools,
and associated species from Project implementation to less than significant levels by
requiring mapping, surveys, and avoidance techniques where habitat is identified. (Ibid.)
3. Wetlands
Impact: The proposed Project would have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (DEIR at ES-30; 3.4-28.) However, with
mitigation, impacts would be less than significant.
Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would
reduce Project impacts on federally protected wetlands to a less than significant level.
(DEIR at 3.4-40 —41.)
MM Bio 3: Project-specific delineations will be required to determine the limits
of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE), RWQCB, and CDFG
jurisdiction. Impacts to jurisdictional waters will require authorization
by the corresponding regulatory agency. If impacts are indicated,
then jurisdictional water will either a) be avoided or b) be minimized
by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation; rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or
restoring, the impacted environment; reducing or eliminating the
24438.40000 7623782.3 25
impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations
during the life of the action; compensating for the impact by
replacing or providing substitute resources or environments in
addition to obtaining the necessary permits from requisite
jurisdictions.
MM Bio 4, supra.
Supporting Explanation: In August 2008, Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc.,
conducted a preliminary general assessment for waters subject to the jurisdictions of: (i)
the U.S. ACOE pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA); (ii) the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to Section 401 of CWA or pursuant to
the California Porter-Cologne Act; and/or (iii) CDFG pursuant to Section 1602 of the
California Fish and Game code. Features with the potential for jurisdiction were
mapped, including agricultural ditches and other roadside ditches, basins, etc., but a
comprehensive, wetland/waters delineation was not conducted. Facility-specific
jurisdictional delineations will need to be conducted to determine whether features
would be subject to the jurisdictions of the ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFG (see MM Bio 3).
(DEIR at 3.4-27.)
The Project area contains roadside ditches and other ditches, which if later are
shown to be historic diversions of natural waters, would be potential jurisdictional
waters. (Ibid.) However, the majority (if not all) of these ditches would be considered as
non-RPWs and so these features will need to be evaluated in facility-specific
jurisdictional delineations to determine if they exhibit a significant nexus to TNWs, and
therefore jurisdictional themselves. (Ibid.) Ditches that are shown to have been wholly
excavated in uplands would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the ACOE. (Ibid.)
Areas supporting hydrophytic vegetation would need to be evaluated at a project-
specific level to determine whether they satisfy wetland criteria. (Ibid.) Any "isolated"
wetlands will need to be evaluated by the ACOE and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) following their joint regulatory guidance, in order to confirm whether any
of the "isolated" wetlands would be jurisdictional. (Ibid.)
With implementation of MM Bio 3, potential impacts to federally-protected
wetlands are reduced to less than significant levels through evaluation, avoidance,
and/or activity minimization and rehabilitation. (Ibid.)
Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction
Many of the features within the Project area may not be subject to ACOE
jurisdiction as a water of the United States, but that may be subject to the waste
discharge requirements (WDRs) of the RWQCB as waters of the State. (ibid.) This may
include isolated basins and seasonal ponded features that support aquatic resources
such as fairy shrimp, including non-listed species such as the versatile fairy shrimp
(Branchinecta lindahli). (Ibid.)
24438.40000'7623782.3 26
California Department of Fish and Game Jurisdiction
The Project area contains features, including drainage ditches that would be
subject to CDFG jurisdiction. (Ibid.) Project-specific jurisdictional delineations will be
required to determine the extent of CDFG jurisdiction. (Ibid.) Impacts to CDFG
jurisdiction will require a Streambed Alteration Agreement. (Ibid.)
4. Conflict with MSHCP, NCCP, or Other Plan
Impact: The proposed Project would conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state conservation plan. However, with mitigation, impacts
would be less than significant. (DEIR at ES-34 — 38; 3.4-29.)
Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would
reduce Project impacts on any conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state conservation plan to a less than significant level. (DEIR at 3.4-40 —
42.)
MM Bio 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8, supra.
Supporting Explanation: The Project area occurs within the San Jacinto
Valley Area Plan of the overall MSHCP planning area. Portions of the Project occur
within Subunit 1 (Gilman Springs/Southern Badlands), Subunit 2 (Lakeview Mountains
East), and Subunit 4 (Hemet Vernal Pool Areas — East), though the majority of the
proposed facilities do not occur within a conservation subunit. (DEIR at 3.4-29.) The
portion of the Project area within Subunit 1 coincides with the extreme southern end of
Cell Groups L and M, as well as portions of Cells 2461, 2462, 2568, 2569, and 2674.
(Ibid.) The portion of the Project area within Subunit 2 coincides with the extreme
eastern portion of Cell Group A'. (Ibid.) The portion of the Project area within Subunit 4
coincides with Cell Group V and portions of Cells 2775, 2878, and 3291. (Ibid.)
The proposed Project is located within a geographic area covered by the
MSHCP. As portions of the Project are located within the Criteria Area of the MSHCP,
the JPR process will be conducted by the Western Riverside County Regional
Conservation Authority (RCA) for those MDP facilities located within an MSHCP Criteria
Area, to ensure Project compliance with the MSHCP for facilities located in cells, prior to
construction. (Ibid.) Those cells that will be considered in the JPR process include Cells
2666, 2774, 2775, 2878, 2363, 2364, 2461, 2462, 2568, 2569, 2674, 2893, 2981, and
3291. (Ibid.)
Approximately 6.38 acres of riparian areas were mapped within the SJV-MDP
facility alignments, though more, smaller areas may exist within areas that could not be
accessed. (DEIR at 3.4-32.) The riparian areas that were mapped, ranged from
roadside/agricultural ditches, to ponds and basins, but also included the edge of
extensive riparian habitat associated with the San Jacinto River. (Ibid.) Some of the
24438.40000`•7623782.3 27
mapped areas qualify as MSHCP Riparian Areas, though others would likely be
excluded due to their artificial nature. (Ibid.) Project-specific mapping would be required
to determine which areas may be subject to MSHCP requirements, and which may not.
Numerous roadside ditches were noted throughout the Project area, though not
all of these could be mapped and evaluated due to the restricted access. (Ibid.) The
majority (if not all) of the ditches would be excluded as MSHCP "riverine areas" due to
their artificial nature. (Ibid.)
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP requires habitat assessments (and focused surveys
where suitable habitat is present) for riparian bird species with MSHCP survey
requirements, including the least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow
flycatcher (Empidonax traillii traillii), and western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus
americanus occidentalis). (Ibid.) All three species are migratory birds that would have
some potential to occur within the MDP Project area as transient individuals during
migration. (Ibid.) However, the yellow-billed cuckoo would not be expected to breed
within the Project area due to a lack of suitable habitat. (Ibid.) The southwestern willow
flycatcher has the potential to breed within the San Jacinto River, but would not be
expected to breed within any of the Project areas. (Ibid.) The least Bell's vireo occupies
portions of the nearby San Jacinto River, and may have a moderate potential to breed
within scattered isolated riparian vegetation within the Project area, though the
opportunity is extremely limited. (Ibid.) Project-specific focused surveys will need to be
conducted for the vireo within potentially suitable to be impacted by a project. (Ibid.)
The majority of lands within the SJV-MDP are not likely to support vernal pools
given their disturbed nature. (Ibid.) However, vernal pools/playa areas are known to
exist within the Project area, including within the area designated as Proposed
Noncontiguous Habitat Block 6 by the MSHCP. (Ibid.) The proposed Habitat Block
includes an existing chicken ranch and other agricultural lands where playa areas are
interspersed amongst these land uses. (Ibid.) Although during the survey, the biologist
did note some scattered playa areas surrounding the chicken ranch property and
adjacent lands, these areas were not able to be adequately evaluated for vernal
pools/fairy shrimp due to seasonal constraints. (Ibid.)
The MSHCP states that the proposed Habitat Block provides preservation value
for several special-status vernal pool plant species, including the federally-listed
California Orcutt grass, thread-leaved brodiaea, and spreading navarretia; as well as
the vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). (Ibid.) However, it is not clear in the
existing records whether one or more of these species have actually been detected
within the Project area. (Ibid.) Based on a review of existing information, it appears that
the MSHCP at least regards these areas as having conservation value for the sensitive
vernal pool species. (Ibid.) Future facility-specific focused surveys will be required
during the appropriate season to confirm the presence/absence of the relevant vernal
pool plants and listed fairy shrimp (see MM Bio 5 and 6). (Ibid.) If avoidance is infeasible
for any riparian/riverine areas or vernal pools located within the Project area, then a
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) must be
24438.40000`.7623782.3 28
approved by the wildlife agencies taking into account mitigation offered to offset the loss
of functions associated with riparian/riverine areas and/or vernal pools as they pertain to
the Covered Species. (DEIR at 3.4-32, 34.)
With the incorporation of mitigation, the Project will comply with the requirements
of the MSHCP, and will therefore, be consistent with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.
(DEIR at 3.4-34.)
Under Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP, Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant
Species, site-specific focused surveys for narrow endemic plant species shall be
required where appropriate or suitable habitat is present within the Narrow Endemic
Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA). (Ibid.) The western/central portion of the Project
area coincides with NEPSSA number 3, which includes target plant species. (Ibid.) At
least two of these plants, Munz's onion and many-stemmed dudleya, are not expected
to occur within the SJV-MDP area due to a lack of suitable habitat. (Ibid.) Other Narrow
Endemic Plants on the list may have the potential to occur based on potentially suitable
habitat. (Ibid.) The area of the Project coinciding with Cell Group V will need to be
thoroughly evaluated for vernal pool plant species, including the Narrow Endemic Plants
that are associated with vernal pools/playas. (Ibid.) Facility-specific surveys would be
required during the appropriate time of the year to determine the presence/absence of
all Narrow Endemic Plants and Criteria Area Plants (see MM Bio 6). (Ibid.)
With the incorporation of mitigation, the Project will comply with the requirements
of the MSHCP and therefore be consistent with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. (Ibid.)
To minimize effects associated with locating development in proximity to the
MSHCP Conservation Area, guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP shall be
implemented in conjunction with review of individual public and private development
projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area and address the following:
drainage, toxics, lighting, noise, invasive species, barriers, and grading/land
development. (Ibid.) Portions of the Project area coincide with or occur in proximity to
Proposed Noncontiguous Habitat Block 6, Existing Constrained Linkage C, and
Proposed Core 5. (Ibid.)
The majority of the Project area occurs within the MSHCP Survey Area for the
western burrowing owl. (DEIR at 3.4-35.) For areas where access was granted, focused
owl surveys were conducted on July 31 and August 7, 8, 11, 12, 20, 22, and August 26,
2008. (Ibid.) For areas without access, a general roadside assessment was conducted
unless view obstruction prevented such assessments. (Ibid.) Since the majority of the
Project area occurs outside of the Criteria Area, the basis for long-term conservation
would depend on the number of breeding pairs present within a facility footprint (three or
more pairs versus fewer than three pairs). (DEIR at 3.4-36.) If the 90-percent avoidance
requirement would apply, but avoidance was not feasible, then a DBESP would need to
be approved to mitigate for the loss of occupied owl habitat. (Ibid.) Furthermore,
whether avoidance is not required or not feasible, any burrowing owls present at a
24438.40000`7623782.3 29
facility site must be relocated following accepted protocols, and take of active nests
must be avoided. (ibid.)
The extreme northern end of Line K terminates at the edge of the mammal
survey area for LAPM and SBKR, however, the rest of the facility alignments are
located outside of the mammal survey areas. (Ibid.) SBKR (Dipodomys merriami
parvus) was determined to have a low potential to occur within the Project area. (Ibid.)
The LAPM (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) was also determined to have a low
potential to occur within the Project area. With implementation of mitigation measure
MM Bio 8, the Project will be consistent with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. (Ibid.)
Also, the majority of the proposed facilities are not located directly adjacent to
MSHCP Conservation Areas and are surrounded by already developed or highly
disturbed lands; however, those facilities located adjacent to MSHCP Conservation
Areas will incorporate brush management consistent with the protection of biological
resources. (Ibid.) Any necessary fuel modification associated with the Project will
remain within the Project area. (Ibid.) The proposed Project is consistent with Section
6.4 of the MSHCP. (Ibid.)
The Project is also consistent with Section 7.5.3 through compliance with NPDES
regulations. (DEIR at 3.4-37.)
The proposed Project is located within the boundary of the RCHCA Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) for the SKR. (Ibid.) The SKR HCP establishes a mechanism
for the long-term conservation of the species. (ibid.) Potential impacts to the SKR are
mitigated on a regional basis through compliance with the MSHCP and the SKR HCP.
(lbid.)As the Project is not in a core reserve, the Project will not conflict with the SKR
HCP and impacts are less than significant. (Ibid.)
With implementation of mitigation measures MM Bio 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8, the
Project is consistent with the MSHCP. (Ibid.) The proposed Project is not located within
any other adopted HCP or NCCP. (Ibid.) The proposed Project will not conflict with an
approved local, regional, or state conservation plan and potential impacts are less than
significant. (Ibid.)
5. Movement of Migratory Fish or Wildlife
Impact: The proposed Project would interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or establish native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
However, with mitigation, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at ES-31 — 32;
3.4-38.)
Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would
reduce Project impacts on any substantial interference with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or establishment of native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impediment of the use of native wildlife nursery sites to a
24438.40000 7623782.3 30
less than significant level. (DEIR at 3.4-40 —42.)
MM Bio 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8, supra.
Supporting Explanation: Portions of the Project area coincide with
Proposed Core 5 which is comprised of the portion of the upper San Jacinto River
extending from the San Jacinto Mountains to just west of State Street. (DEIR at 3.4-38.)
Maintenance of floodplain processes and water quality of the San Jacinto River is
important for these species, as well as maintenance of habitat quality. (Ibid.) There are
no other waterways within the project area that could serve as movement corridors.
(Ibid.) This Core likely provides for movement of mammals such as mountain lion and
bobcat, connecting to Core Areas in the San Jacinto Mountains, Lake Perris, and San
Jacinto Wildlife Refuge. (Ibid.) In addition to indirect effects associated with adjacent
planned land uses, flood control activities resulting from adjacent planned land uses
may also adversely affect species such as arroyo toad, San Bernardino kangaroo rat,
least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and Los Angeles pocket mouse. (Ibid.)
With implementation of mitigation measures MM Bio 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8, the project-
specific mapping and surveying of habitat, and the implementation of avoidance
techniques and/or the approval of a DBESP and enhancement, preservation, or
payment of fees will ensure that impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level.
(Ibid.)
B. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Historical Resources
Impact: The proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5. However, with
mitigation, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at ES-39— 41; 3.5-15 — 16.)
Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would
reduce Project impacts on historical resources to a less than significant level. (DEIR at
3.5-18 — 19.)
MINI Cultural 1: A paleontological resources field survey (or surveys) shall be
completed prior to the earlier of issuance of a grading permit or
construction of any SJV-MDP facility subject to further CEQA
analysis. If the results of such survey (or surveys) identify the
presence of potentially significant paleontological resources,
avoidance or other appropriate measures (such as excavation,
analysis, and interpretation of resources) potentially leading to
curation in perpetuity in a facility that meets the standards of the
State of California Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological
Collections (OHP 1993) and 36 CFR 79, shall be implemented.
(DEIR at 3.5-18.)
24438.40000'•7623782.3 31
MM Cultural 2a: Prior to the earlier of issuance of a grading permit or
construction of any SJV MDP facility subject to further CEQA
analysis, the San Jacinto Public Works Department Hemet Public
Works Department, or RCFCWCD shall require the Project
applicant to commission an assessment of the potential for
archeological and cultural resources to be performed by a qualified
archaeologist in conjunction with recognized Native American
tribes, including the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (Soboba), in
order to determine the presence and extent of any such resources
within the Project area and evaluate the significance of such
resources. The assessment shall include a NAHC and CHRIS
records search, a Phase I walkover survey, and preparation of an
archaeological report containing the results of this assessment.
Phase II archaeological evaluations will be completed prior to
project approval if recommended in the assessment. (Ibid.)
MM Cultural 2b: The San Jacinto Public Works Department, Hemet Public
Works Department, or RCFCWCD shall enter into a Treatment and
Disposition Agreement (TDA) with Soboba to address treatment
and disposition of archaeological and cultural resources and human
remains associated with Soboba that may be uncovered or
otherwise discovered during construction within the jurisdiction of
the San Jacinto Public Works Department, Hemet Public Works
Department, or RCFCWCD. The TDA may establish provisions for
tribal monitors. Following execution of the TDA by the San Jacinto
Public Works Department or Hemet Public Works Department and
Soboba, the TDA will be incorporated by reference into individual
grading permits for portions of the Project that are within the
jurisdiction of San Jacinto Public Works Department or Hemet
Public Works Department; TDAs executed between RCFCWCD
and Soboba will be incorporated into the construction
specifications. (Ibid.)
MM Cultural 2c: If the archaeological/cultural resources assessment described
in MM Cultural 2a demonstrates the potential for
archaeological/cultural resources to occur on the Project site, tribal
monitors, including those from Soboba, may be allowed to monitor,
at such tribe's sole cost and expense, all grading, excavation, and
ground-disturbing activities, including further surveys. Following the
agreement of the San Jacinto Public Works Department, Hemet
Public Works Department, or RCFCWCD, the designated
archaeologist, the tribal monitor, and any applicable responsible or
trustee agencies, grading, excavation, ground-disturbing activities
shall be halted temporarily, and redirected in the event that any
archaeological/cultural resources are discovered, in order to
evaluate the significance of said archaeological/cultural resources.
24438.40000`7623782.3 32
Any artifacts collected or recovered shall be cleaned, identified,
catalogued, analyzed, and prepared for curation at an appropriate
repository with permanent retrievable storage to allow for additional
research in the future. Site records or site record updates (as
appropriate) shall be prepared and submitted to the Eastern
Information Center as a permanent record of the discovery. (DEIR
at 3.5-18 - 19.)
Supporting Explanation: The "Historical/Archeological Resources Survey
Report" provides background information on the archaeological and historical resources
within the portions of the Project footprint that could be surveyed. (DEIR at 3.5-15.) One
historic resource, Site 33-015743, is within the boundaries of a segment of the former
San Jacinto Valley Railway that dates to 1888. (Ibid.)
According to the conceptual alignments and facilities identified in the SJV-MDP,
Project-related activities at this location will be limited to trenching for the installation of
an underground storm drain within the railway ROW. (Ibid.) If construction within the
railway ROW is limited to underground facilities, and does not include the intersection of
any facilities with the rail line or associated railway structures, the Project will not result
in the destruction or relocation of the railway nor will it alter the basic characteristics of
the site. (Ibid.) Therefore, the proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of Site 33-015743, the only historical resource encountered
in the portions of the Project footprint studied (CRM-A, p. 25). (Ibid.)
The alignments are conceptual at this time. (Ibid.) If at final design of any SJV-
MDP facilities in the vicinity of the railway, the conceptual plans change to include
construction of above-ground structures or the removal of existing tracks or other
railroad-related structures within the ROW, this would be considered a modification of
the Project for which subsequent CEQA analysis (i.e., initial study, negative declaration,
addendum to the EIR, subsequent EIR, supplemental EIR) will be required. (Ibid.)
A vernacular commercial building at 301 N. State Street, known as "Rocios Party
Rentals," is located within Project's footprint. (Ibid.) A review of historic aerial
photographs, it post-dates 1967 and therefore is not considered a potential historical
resource and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.) No other potential historical resources
were encountered within or adjacent to the project footprint during this study. (Ibid.)
Portions of the Project footprint were inaccessible to field survey personnel and
could not be surveyed; thus, it is possible that historical resources could be present on
the portions of the Project's footprint that could not be surveyed and a field survey will
be required for these facilities per mitigation measure MM Cultural 2a. (Ibid.)
Since the project area falls within the bounds of the Soboba Band's Tribal
Traditional Use Areas, mitigation measure MM Cultural 2a, 2b, and 2c, require Native
American tribes, including Soboba, to be notified prior to any ground-disturbing work on
Project facilities that the field survey required per MM Cultural 1 identified as having the
potential to contain archaeological, historical or cultural resources. (DEIR at 3.5-19.) In
24438.40000 7623782.3 33
the event that unanticipated buried cultural resources are encountered, Mitigation
measure MM Cultural 2c, requires construction in the vicinity of the find to be redirected
until a qualified archaeologist determines an appropriate course of action. (DEIR at 3.5-
19 — 20.) Therefore, the implementation of mitigation measures MM Cultural 2a through
2c would reduce potential impacts to historical resources to a less than significant level.
(Ibid.)
2. Archaeological Resources
Impact: The proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5. However, with
mitigation, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at ES-42 —44; 3.5-15 — 16.)
Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would
reduce Project impacts on archaeological resources to a less than significant level.
(DEIR at 3.5-18 — 19.)
MM Cultural 1, 2a-2c, supra.
Supporting Explanation: Numerous prehistoric—i.e., Native American—
archaeological sites have been found in the area consisting of various amounts of
habitation debris such as: ceramic shards, chipped stone and groundstone tools,
debitage, midden soils, fire-affected rock, and sometimes human remains. (DEIR at 3.5-
15.)
Bedrock milling features and, less frequently, petroglyphs, have been found in
the San Jacinto Valley in areas where bedrock outcrops are present. (DEIR at 3.5-16.)
However, no evidence of any prehistoric archaeological cultural resources was found
within or adjacent to that portion of the Project footprint that could be surveyed (CRM-A,
p. 18). (Ibid.)
The NAHC reported that the sacred lands record search identified the presence
of Native American cultural resources within the project's boundary and suggested the
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians and 10 other local Native American representatives be
contacted for further information. (Ibid.) CRM TECH initiated correspondence contacts
of the 11 organizations on the referral list provided by NAHC, in addition to the to the
Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, Morongo Band of Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians and Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, were also contacted. (Ibid.)
As of May 2009, representatives of the Cahuilla Band, Soboba Band, and
Temecula Band responded to CRM TECH's request for comment. (Ibid.) The Soboba
Band commented directly to San Jacinto in June 2007 regarding this Project and
requested a Native American monitor (from the tribe) be present during all Project-
related ground-disturbing activities and the tribe be involved in all future consultations
between the Project proponent and the Lead Agency. (Ibid.) This request was reiterated
in correspondence (dated April 14, 2008) from the Soboba Band's Cultural Resources
Coordinator to CRM-TECH. (Ibid.)
24438.40000,7623792.3 34
In a letter dated March 28, 2008, the Temecula Band identified the Project area
as a part of the tribe's ancestral lands, requested further consultation with the Project
proponent and Lead Agency, and copies of all archaeological documentation pertaining
to the Project. (Ibid.)
In a telephone conversation on March 27, 2008, the Cultural Resources
Coordinator for the Cahuilla Band of Indians stated that the tribe had concerns
regarding Native American cultural resources within the Project's boundary, and that
members of the tribe may be interested in a site visit. (Ibid.) Subsequent to this
conversation, the Cultural Resources Coordinator left his position with the Cahuilla
Band and CRM TECH contacted the Chairperson of the Cahuilla Band, who requested
to review the inquiry letter for the project. (Ibid.) CRM TECH contacted the Chairperson
of the Cahuilla Band again in July 2008 concerning the field survey results and a
possible site visit. (Ibid.) At that time, the Chairperson of the Cahuilla Band replied that
he would contact CRM TECH directly if Project's footprint warranted a site visit. (Ibid.)
As of May 2009, CRM TECH has not heard back any member of the Cahuilla Band.
(Ibid.) Throughout the course of the Native American consultation, no specific sites of
Native American cultural concern were identified within the Project boundary by any of
the tribal representatives contacted. (Ibid.)
Based on the results of the records searches, Native American consultations,
and field surveys, no archaeological resources were identified for those SJV-MDP
facilities that were surveyed. (Ibid.) Since the project area falls within the bounds of the
Soboba Band's Tribal Traditional Use Areas, mitigation measure MM Cultural 2a, 2b,
and 2c, require Native American tribes, including Soboba, to be notified prior to any
ground-disturbing work on Project facilities that the field survey required per MM
Cultural 1 identified as having the potential to contain archaeological, historical or
cultural resources. (DEIR at 3.5-19.) In the event that unanticipated buried cultural
resources are encountered, Mitigation measure MM Cultural 2c, requires construction in
the vicinity of the find to be redirected until a qualified archaeologist determines an
appropriate course of action. (DEIR at 3.5-19 — 20.) Therefore, the implementation of
mitigation measures MM Cultural 2a through 2c would reduce potential impacts to
archaeological resources are a less than significant level. (Ibid.)
3. Paleontological Resources
Impact: The proposed Project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature. However, with mitigation,
impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at ES-44— 47: 3.5-17.)
Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would
reduce Project impacts on paleontological resources to a less than significant level.
(DEIR at 3.5-19.)
MM Cultural 3: Earth-moving activities encountering soils that are identified as
Pleistoceneage or older alluvium, by the soils engineer, shall be
24438.40000'•7623782.3 35
monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor. Continuous
monitoring shall be restricted to undisturbed older alluvium, which
might be present below the surface. To avoid construction delays,
the monitor shall be prepared to quickly salvage fossils, as they are
unearthed. The monitor shall remove samples of sediments that are
likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and
vertebrates. The monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt
or divert grading equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or
large specimens. (DEIR at 3.5-19.)
MM Cultural 4: All recovered specimens shall be prepared and stabilized for
identification and permanent preservation, including the washing of
sediment samples to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates.
(ibid.)
MM Cultural 5: Identification and curation of recovered specimens into an
established accredited museum repository with permanent
retrievable paleontological storage shall be required. Mitigation of
adverse impacts to significant paleontological resources is not
complete until the curation process has been fully completed and
documented. (ibid.)
MM Cultural 6: Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized
inventory of specimens shall be required. The submittal of the
report to the Lead Agency and the curation of recovered specimens
into an established, accredited museum repository would signify the
completion of the mitigation program. (ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: The results of the Paleontological Resources
Assessment (DEIR Appendix D.2) indicate that the surficial soils within the Project's
footprint consist of alluvium of Recent (Holocene) age and have a low potential for
significant nonrenewable fossil remains. (DEIR at 3.5-17.) However, these younger
alluvial sediments are of variable thickness and are known to rest directly on top of older
Pleistocene-age sediments, which have a high potential to yield significant vertebrate
fossil remains. (Ibid.) Therefore, the proposed Project's potential to impact
paleontological resources is determined to be low in the surficial alluvial sediments but
high in the subsurface Pleistoceneage soils. (Ibid.)
The thickness of the younger sediments may be determined from the
geotechnical soil borings, should they be available at the onset of grading or trenching
activities. (Ibid.) Previous studies in the area reveal that fossils recovered from similar
sediments have been deeper than 10 feet, but that some can be found as shallow as
three feet deep, especially nearer the base of hills. (Ibid.) Since Project-related
excavations will be greater than three feet in depth, mitigation measures, Mitigation
measures MM Cultural 3 through MM Cultural 6 outline specific measures that will be
taken if certain soil types or any artifacts are unearthed during construction activities,
24438.40000 7623782.3 36
and will ensure that impacts to paleontological resources are reduced to a less than
significant level. (ibid.)
C. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Creation of Hazard to the Public or Environment
Impact: The proposed Project would 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; or 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, create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment. However, with mitigation, impacts would be
less than significant. (DEIR at ES-48 — 51; 3.6-20 —22.)
Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would
reduce Project impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials to a less than
significant level. (DEIR at 3.622 — 24.)
MM Haz 1: As part of the final design of each SJV-MDP facility, the design
engineer or designee shall check proposed sites for listing on the
most recent Hazardous Waste and Substances List provided by the
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health pursuant to
Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. If the location of said
facility is on the Hazardous Waste and Substances List, avoidance
of that property or properties will be the first consideration; if
avoidance is infeasible, MM Haz 2 shall be implemented. (DEIR at
3.6-22 —23.)
MM Haz 2: If the selected facility traverses a site listed on the Hazardous
Waste and Substances List, and avoidance is not feasible or if
there are other indications that a site could be contaminated, a
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for such facility will
be prepared. If the Phase 1 ESA identifies possible contamination
along the facility alignment, then all recommended subsurface
investigation measures listed in the Phase I ESA will be
implemented. Based on subsurface investigations characterizing
subsurface contamination, remediation measures (such as
excavation of contaminated soil, bioremediation, or soil-vapor
extraction), shall be implemented for the applicable facility or an
alternative facility alignment will be chosen. (DEIR at 3.6-23.)
MM Haz 3: All environmental investigation and/or remediation (such as
excavation of contaminated soil, bioremediation, or soil-vapor
extraction) shall be conducted under a Workplan approved by
jurisdictional regulatory agencies overseeing hazardous waste
cleanups until the applicable regulatory standard is met. (ibid.)
24438.40000 7623782.3 37
MM Haz 4: Prior to any excavation or soil removal on known contaminated
sites, or if contaminated soil (i.e., soil with a visible sheen or
detectable odor) is encountered, a complete characterization of the
soil will be conducted. Appropriate sampling shall be conducted
prior to disposal of the excavated soil. If the soil is contaminated, it
shall be properly disposed of according to California's Land
Disposal restrictions (California Code of Regulations, Chapter 18,
Title 22). If site remediation involves the removal of contamination,
then contaminated material shall be transported off-site by a
licensed handler/hauler to a licensed hazardous waste disposal
facility. (Ibid.)
MM Haz 5: If soil import is required for construction of a specific facility, proper
sampling shall be conducted prior to the use of such imported soil
to make sure that the imported soil is free of contamination. (Ibid.)
MM Haz 6: If during construction of a specific facility, soil and/or groundwater
contamination is suspected, construction in the area of the
suspected contamination shall cease and appropriate health and
safety measures shall be implemented. The construction contractor
shall contact the respective jurisdictional enforcement agency (i.e.,
San Jacinto, Hemet, Riverside County, RCFCWCD) to obtain the
necessary information on appropriate measures and their
implementation. The measures recommended by the applicable
enforcement agency will be implemented. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation: The EDR report listed a total of 64 sites within
one-mile of the proposed project alignment. (DEIR at 3.6-20.) Based on the results of
the EDR report, the Project proposes facilities within close vicinity of 27 sites classified
as hazardous materials sites under various regulatory statuses. (Ibid.)
Sites listed on the HAZNET, FINDS, CLEANERS, Small Quantity Generators
(SQGs), Large Quantity Generators (LQGs), UST, HIST UST, RCRA, and/or TRIS
databases only pose a potential problem in the event of a spill or leak. (Ibid.)
Consequently, unless these sites also appear on a list of contaminated sites, there is no
evidence of any problems at this time. (Ibid.) Although no significant impacts related to
hazards and hazardous materials are anticipated from Potentially Contaminated Sites in
the Project vicinity — sites that have at least one listing describing it as potentially
contaminated — or from Project-related construction and operations, common types of
unanticipated existing contamination (resulting from prior leaking underground storage
tanks, poor chemical handling or accidental/intentional unauthorized chemical release)
could be encountered during construction of proposed facilities. (DEIR at 3.6-22.) With
the adherence to local, state and federal regulations and the mitigation measures listed
above, potential significant environmental effects related to hazards and hazardous
materials will be reduced to less than significant levels. (DEIR at 3.6-23.)
24438.40000 7623782.3 38
SECTION 4: RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY
MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of Mitigation
Measures outlined in the EIR and in this Resolution, the following impacts from the
Proposed Project and related approvals cannot be fully mitigated to a less than
significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included
herein:
A. AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
1. Conversion of Prime, Unique Farmland
Impact: The proposed Project would convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. This impact will
remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR at 3.2-13, 14.)
Finding: No feasible mitigation exists to reduce or eliminate the conversion
of Farmland. This impact will remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR at ES-18; 3.2-
14, 18 — 19.)
Supporting Explanation: The SJV-MDP identifies, at a conceptual level,
proposed storm drains, channels, and basins, which could be located in Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (collectively referred
to as Important Farmland). (DEIR at 3.2-12.) The proposed storm drains are
underground facilities, and as such, will not result in a permanent conversion of
Important Farmland, as the facility footprint could be returned to its original condition.
(ibid.)
Construction and operation of the proposed basin and channels would result in a
permanent change to Important Farmland, as they are open facilities and must be
maintained in order to retain flood control capacity. (Ibid.)
Construction of the proposed open channels will be primarily located within or
adjacent to road ROW. (DEIR at 3.2-13.) However, construction of SJV-MDP facilities
will result in the direct conversion of approximately 121.75 acres of Important Farmland
to open storm channel facilities; which is a potentially significant impact. (Ibid.)
The proposed Line D Basin, which is anticipated to encompass approximately 15
acres, is located within an area identified as being Prime Farmland and Farmland of
Statewide Importance. (Ibid.) Therefore, construction of this facility will result in the
direct conversion of 15 acres of Important Farmland to a non-agricultural use by
converting the property to a flood control facility, which is a potentially significant impact.
(Ibid.)
On-site agricultural use would not be economically viable in the long term and
would be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plans for San
Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside County. (DEIR at 3.2-14.) Off-site agricultural use is also
24438.40000 7623782.3 39
infeasible because there is no other comparable land planned for agriculture use in San
Jacinto or Hemet's General Plans and placing agricultural restrictions on new parcels
would result in the same or similar issues as with on-site mitigation. Off-site mitigation
would also conflict with the goals and objectives of the respective General Plans. (Ibid.)
Therefore, no feasible mitigation exists to reduce or eliminate the conversation of
Important Farmland to non-agricultural uses. (Ibid.)
2. Conflict with Zoning for Agricultural Use/Williamson Act
Contract
Impact: The proposed Project would conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. This impact will remain significant and
unavoidable. (DEIR at 3.2-13.)
Finding: No feasible mitigation exists to reduce or eliminate the conflict
with a Williamson Act contract. This impact will remain significant and unavoidable.
(DEIR at ES-18 — 19; 3.2-13, 18 — 19.)
Supporting Explanation: SJV-MDP conceptual alignment and location of
open channels Line 1, Line 2, Line 3, Line X, and the Line E-Y-Z Confluence Basin are
within property under a Williamson Act contract. (DEIR at 3.2-13.) With respect to the
proposed open channels, construction will be primarily located within or adjacent to road
ROW. (Ibid.) Construction of open channels within existing road ROW will not conflict
with or require the cancellation of a Williamson Act contract due to the limited direct
impacts associated with construction and operation of the linear open channel facilities.
(Ibid.) The conversion of approximately 6.3 acres of Farmland of Local Importance
under a Williamson Act Contract to a non-agricultural use will be required in the
construction of the Line E-Y-Z Confluence Basin and will be a direct impact to a
Williamson Act Contract. (Ibid.)
With respect to indirect impacts to existing zoning and Williamson Act contracts,
the San Jacinto General Plan does not include an agricultural land use designation and
allows the development of currently zoned agricultural land for urban uses. (Ibid.) By
providing drainage infrastructure that could support development of the Project area, the
proposed Project could indirectly contribute to the development of land currently zoned
for agricultural uses or protected by a Williamson Act contract for urban uses, which is
an indirect significant impact. (Ibid.)
3. Conversion of Farmland to Non-Agricultural Use
Impact: The proposed Project would involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use. This impact will remain significant and unavoidable.
(DEIR at 3.2-13.)
Finding: No feasible mitigation exists to reduce or eliminate the conversion
of farmland to non-agricultural use. This impact will remain significant and unavoidable.
24438.40000'.7623782.3 40
(DEIR at ES-19; 3.2-13 — 14, 18 — 19.)
Supporting Explanation: The proposed Project will provide drainage
infrastructure that could support development of the Project area. (DEIR at 3.2-13.)
Development of adjacent areas would result in the direct conversion of farmland
(including Important Farmland) to non-agricultural uses. (Ibid.) Consequently, the
proposed Project has the potential to indirectly convert farmland in the Project area.
(Ibid.) The San Jacinto, Hemet, and part of the unincorporated portions of the Project
area are designated for non-agricultural land uses in the adopted General Plans; thus
the direct conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses would likely occur in the
Project area with the build out of the San Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside County General
Plans. (DEIR at 3.2-13 - 14.) Because the proposed Project will likely support the
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses, impacts are considered potentially
significant. (DEIR at 3.2-14.)
Drainage facilities included in the Project and development in the Project area
will be consistent with the land use designations in the San Jacinto, Hemet, and
Riverside County General Plans. (DEIR at 3.2-18.) Thus, both on-site and off-site
mitigation are infeasible due to the economic viability of large-scale agriculture and
would conflict with the goals and policies of these General Plans. (Ibid.)
Property owner cooperation, substantial financial incentives, and agricultural
preservation programs (such as voluntary Williamson Act contracts, private land trusts,
agricultural land mitigation banks, and conservation easements) could reduce the
Project's impacts to agricultural uses. (Ibid.) These measures would, at most, prevent
future conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, but they would not create
farmland where it does not currently exist. (Ibid.) These measures would not prevent
conversion of farmland already projected in the San Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside
County General Plans and facilitated by the Project's drainage facilities. (DEIR at 3.2-18
- 19.) Therefore, Project impacts with respect to agricultural resources would remain
significant and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required prior to
Project approval. (DEIR at 3.2-19.)
B. AIR QUALITY
1. Violation of Air Quality Standard — Short-Term Impacts
Impact: The proposed Project's short-term impacts would violate an air
quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation. Impacts would remain significant. (DEIR at ES-19; 3.3-38, 42 —43.)
Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would
reduce air quality impacts as they relate to a violation of air quality standards. However,
this impact will remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR at 3.3-42.)
MM Air 1: During construction, ozone precursor emissions from all vehicles
and construction equipment shall be controlled by maintaining
24438.40000`7623782.3 41
equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per
manufacturers' specifications to the satisfaction of the jurisdiction in
which the construction is taking place, i.e., San Jacinto Public
Works Department, Hemet Public Works Department, Riverside
County Department of Building and Safety, or RCFCWCD.
Equipment maintenance records and equipment design
specification data sheets shall be kept on site during construction.
Compliance with this measure shall be subject to periodic
verification by the San Jacinto Public Works Department, Hemet
Public Works Department, Riverside County Building and Safety
Department, or RCFCWCD. (Ibid.)
MM Air 2: Signs shall be posted stating that all vehicles are prohibited from
idling in excess of five minutes, both on and off site. (Ibid.)
MM Air 3: Electricity from power poles shall be used instead of temporary
diesel- or gasoline powered generators to reduce the associated
emissions. (Ibid.)
MM Air 4: To reduce construction vehicle (truck) and equipment idling while
waiting to enter/exit the site, the contractor shall submit a traffic
control plan that will describe in detail safe detours to prevent traffic
congestion to the best of the Project's ability, and provide
temporary traffic control measures. To reduce traffic congestion,
and therefore NOx, the plan shall include, as necessary,
appropriate, and practicable the following: dedicated turn lanes for
movement of construction trucks and equipment on and off site,
scheduling of construction activities that affect traffic flow on the
arterial system to off-peak hour, rerouting of construction trucks
away from congested streets or sensitive receptors, and/or signal
synchronization to improve traffic flow. (Ibid.)
Supporting Explanation:
Short-Term Impacts— RST Analysis
Short-term emissions were evaluated using the URBEMIS 2007 for Windows
version 9.2.4 computer program. (DEIR at 3.3-30.) The model evaluated emissions
resulting from basin excavation and construction of several types of drainage facilities.
(Ibid.) Construction timing and phasing of all San Jacinto Valley MDP facilities are
unknown; therefore, it was assumed that construction of all four modeled scenarios
could start no sooner than August 2010. (Ibid.) The default parameters within URBEMIS
were used and these default values reflect a worst-case scenario, which means that any
other proposed MDP facility's emissions are expected to be equal to or less than the
estimated construction emissions modeled for each of the four modeled scenarios.
(Ibid.)
24438.40000 7623782.3 42
Four different "worst-case" scenarios representing each type of individual
construction Project were analyzed. (Ibid.) In addition to the default values used, several
assumptions relevant to model inputs for short-term construction emission estimates of
each facility are presented below.
Casa Loma Basin:
• Construction of this basin is anticipated to require no less than nine months.
Construction timing is unknown and is assumed to occur no sooner than
August 2010. (Ibid.)
• Approximately 727,000 cubic yards (CY) of soil will be exported from the site.
While the location of the exported soil is unknown at this time, plenty of sites
exist within 10 miles of the Project site to deposit fill material. Therefore, for
modeling purposes each truck trip (two truck trips per truckload) is set at 10
miles. A maximum disturbance area of 2-acres is assumed to occur per day.
(Ibid.)
• To evaluate Project compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust
control, the facility utilized the mitigation option of watering the Project site
three times daily which achieves a control efficiency of 61 percent for PM-10
and PM-2.5 emissions. (Ibid.)
Line Y:
• Construction of 12,000 linear feet of Line Y in this analysis also includes Line
Y-1 and does not include the segment of Line Y that continues south from the
connection with Line Y-1 to Warren Road ending at Seventh Street. The
maximum dimensions for this underground concrete box alignment are 14-feet
wide by 11-feet deep. (Ibid.)
• Construction of this facility is anticipated to progress at a rate of 100 feet per
day. Construction timing is unknown and is assumed to occur no sooner than
August 2010. (Ibid.)
• A trench depth of 20 feet is anticipated approximately 1,500 CY of on-site
cut/fill will be disturbed daily during the excavation and re-compaction of the
Project area. (Ibid.)
• To evaluate Project compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust
control, the Project utilized the mitigation option of watering the facility site
three times daily which achieves a control efficiency of 61 percent for PM-10
and PM-2.5 emissions. (DEIR at 3.3-31.)
Line E:
• Construction of the 14,700 linear feet of open channel is anticipated to
progress at a rate of 500 feet per day. As stated above, construction timing is
24438.40000'•7623782.3 43
unknown and is assumed to occur no sooner than August 2010. (Ibid.)
• A trench depth of 7 feet is anticipated and approximately 7,300 CY of on-site
cut/fill will be disturbed daily during the excavation and re-compaction of the
Project area. (Ibid.)
• To evaluate Project compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust
control, the facility utilized the mitigation option of watering the Project site
three times daily which achieves a control efficiency of 61 percent for PM-10
and PM-2.5 emissions. (Ibid.)
Line D-4:
• Construction of the 2,200 linear feet of 42-inch underground pipeline is
anticipated to progress at a rate of 100 feet per day. As stated above,
construction timing is unknown and is assumed to occur no sooner than
August 2010. (Ibid.)
• A trench depth of 9 feet is anticipated and approximately 233 CY of on-site
cut/fill will be disturbed daily during the excavation and re-compaction of the
Project area.
• To evaluate Project compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust
control, the Project utilized the mitigation option of watering the Project site
three times daily which achieves a control efficiency of 61 percent for PM-10
and PM-2.5 emissions. (Ibid.)
• Approximately 15,400 square feet (0.35 acres) of surface area will be covered
in asphalt once the pipeline is in place. To ensure a worst-case scenario, it is
assumed that both pipeline installation and asphalt paving could occur
concurrently. (Ibid.)
Criteria pollutant emissions from construction of the Casa Loma Basin Project will
exceed the SCAQMD regional daily thresholds for NOx throughout construction, and
construction of Line E will exceed the SCAQMD regional daily thresholds for PM-10,
and PM-2.5. (DEIR at 3.3-34.) Construction of Line Y and Line D4 will not exceed any
SCAQMD regional daily thresholds for criteria pollutant emissions. (Ibid.) The main
source of NOx emissions is from on-road vehicle exhaust from soil hauling and
construction equipment; the main source of PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions is from
fugitive dust during channel excavation activities. (Ibid.)
Since this Project consists of several distinct proposed facility alignments and
basin sites, there is the possibility that construction of various SJV-MDP facilities will
overlap. (Ibid.) It was determined that construction of the Casa Loma Basin and the
analyzed portion of Line Y would be the most likely of all SJV-MDP facilities to be
constructed at the same time; therefore, this combination of facilities was used to
Project the maximum daily emissions for the Project. (Ibid.) The maximum daily
emissions from these overlapping construction schedules during 2010 and 2011 are
24438.40000 7623782.3 44
contained in Table 3.3-G. (Ibid.)
Table 3,3-G, Estimated Maximum Daily (Emissions (2010-2011)
Peale Dally Emissions(Ihlda})
Acfr+ll�/Year
VOC NO, Co S02 PM-10 P37-2.5
SCAQMD Dall►Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
2010
Casa Lorna Basin 17.59 191.56 83.38 0.15 149.35 37.16
Line Y 4.86 38.43 22.30 0.00 93.97 21.11
14Iaximum 22.45 229.99 105.68 0.15 243.22 58.27
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No Yes Yea
2011
Casa Uc ma Basin 16.38 175.09 77.40 0.15 148.56 36.42
Line Y 4.57 35.95 21.48 0.00 93.74 20.99
Ntaiimwn 20.95 211.04 98.88 0.15 242.30 57.41
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No NO Yes Yes
The maximum short-term emissions during 2010 and 2011 will be higher than the
emissions from the two individual Project types alone. (DEIR at 3.3-35.) As shown in
Table 3.3-G, criteria pollutant emissions from construction in both years will exceed the
SCAQMD regional daily thresholds for NOx, PM-10, and PM-2.5 during the construction
of various facilities or combinations of facilities, but will not exceed any other pollutant
thresholds. (Ibid.)
Short-Term Impacts - LST Analysis
For short-term construction emissions, it is estimated that the maximum area to
be disturbed for each representative facility would be less than or equal to two acres a
day. (DEIR at 3.3-36.) According to the LST methodology, only on-site emissions need
to be analyzed. (Ibid.) On-site construction emissions do not include worker trips or on-
road diesel truck emissions from soil hauling. (Ibid.) SCAQMD has provided LST lookup
tables and sample construction scenarios (available at
http://www.agmd.gov/cega/handbook/LST/LST.html) to allow users to readily determine
if the daily emissions for proposed construction or operational activities could result in
significant localized air quality impacts for projects five acres or smaller. (Ibid.) Although
some of the representative facility sites are larger than five acres, it is anticipated that
an area no larger than two acres would be disturbed on any of the representative facility
sites per day during construction. (Ibid.) Therefore, the LST lookup tables were used for
construction emissions. (Ibid.) Facility-specific information such as disturbance area,
amount of dirt handled, and the equipment type and numbers were input instead of
default information when available. (Ibid.)
The LST thresholds are estimated using the maximum daily-disturbed area (in
acres) and the distance of the Project to the nearest sensitive receptors (in meters).
24438 40000 7623782.3 45
(Ibid.) The LST lookup tables only provide thresholds for distances of 25, 50, 100, 200,
and 500 meters away from the Project boundary, so the receptor distances used reflect
one of these distances. (Ibid.) Because the proposed Project, as analyzed, consists of
four separate facility sites in different locations that are located different distances from
sensitive receptors, each representative facility is analyzed separately for its
relationship to the nearest sensitive receptors. (Ibid.) Existing residences are the
nearest sensitive receptors in the Project area for each of the representative facilities.
(Ibid.) However, the entire SJV- MDP area includes many types of sensitive receptors
consisting of schools, child care centers, athletic facilities, playgrounds, retirement
homes, and convalescent homes adjacent to and in close proximity with the majority of
the SJV-MDP facilities. (Ibid.)
The Casa Loma Basin is separated from its nearest sensitive receptors by
Cottonwood Avenue at a distance of approximately 100 feet (30 meters). (Ibid.) Line Y
is separated from the nearest sensitive receptors, residences on agricultural lands, by a
minimum of approximately 600 feet (183 meters) so the receptor distance of 200 meters
was used. (Ibid.) The nearest sensitive receptor to Line E is a residence approximately
170 feet (52 meters) west of its proposed alignment on Sanderson Avenue near the
existing San Jacinto Reservoir. LST Methodology states that Project's with boundaries
located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LST distance of 25
meters for the analysis. (DEIR at 3.3-36 — 37.) A distance of 25 meters was used to
estimate the receptor distance for Line D-4 construction that will occur within existing
road right-of-way adjacent to sensitive receptors on Hewitt Street. (DEIR at 3.3-37.)
Table 3.3-H summarizes the emissions from each representative facility and the
corresponding threshold.
Table 3.3-11, Localized Short-1 erm Uonstruction Impacts
14iaaimum WillPeak Di llr Einl slons dblda})
iDlsturhed Area No, CO Pay-10 P31-2.5
Aeffkit) (acres)
Casa Loma Basin 2.0 115.2 53.7 9 5.9
25 Meter Threshold 2.0 234 970 7 4
Exceeds Threshold No No Yes Yes
Line Y 0.23 53.5 26.8 3.4 2.8
200 Meter Threshold 1.0 460 4,850 67 20
Exceeds Threshold No No No No
Line E 1.15 102.3 49.7 6.7 5.1
50 Meter Threshold 1.0 203 974 12 4
Exceeds Threshold No No No Yes
D-4 0.23 74-4 38.2 4.8 4.2
25 Meter Threshold 1-0 162 661 4 3
Exceeds Threshold No No Yes Yes
According to Table 3.3-H, construction of the Casa Loma Basin and Line D-4 will
result in localized PM-10 and PM-2.5 impacts to the respective sensitive receptors in
the Project vicinity and the construction of Line E will result in localized PM-2.5 impacts
2443 8.40000 7623782.3 46
to its receptors. (Ibid.) Localized emissions of NOx and CO from construction of each
representative Project will not exceed the applicable LST. (Ibid.)
Conclusion
In an effort to reduce estimated emissions, the mitigation measures listed above
were considered. (DEIR at 3.3-42.) MM Air 1 through 4 are associated with reduction in
construction-related emissions for NOX, PM-10 and PM-2.5. (Ibid.) Although
implementation of mitigation measures MM Air 1 through 4, will reduce Project-
generated emissions, there are no distinct SCAQMD established quantitative reductions
associated with them; therefore, to be conservative, it is assumed that there is no
change in the estimated emissions of the Project from those mitigation measures. (Ibid.)
The Project's short-term construction emissions will still exceed the SCAQMD
regional significance thresholds for NOx, PM-10, and PM-2.5. (DEIR at 3.3-42 - 43.)
Short-term construction will also exceed applicable localized significance
thresholds (LST) for PM-10 and PM-2.5. (DEIR at 3.3-43.)
2. Sensitive Receptors — Short-Term Emissions
Impact: The proposed Project's short-term impacts would expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (DEIR at ES-22; 3.3-41.) Even with
mitigation, impacts from short-term emissions may remain significant.
Finding: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would
reduce air quality impacts as they relate to sensitive receptors. However, this impact will
remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR at 3.3-42.)
MM Air 1 through 4, supra.
Supporting Explanation: Based on the LST analysis of the proposed
Project, the short-term construction of the SJV-MDP facilities will not result in any
localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors within the Project area for NOx or
CO, during construction of Project facilities; however, emissions of PM-10 and PM-2.5
during construction are above SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds. (DEIR at 3.3-
41.) Therefore, exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations
from short-term construction emissions is considered significant. (Ibid.) Due to the lack
of stationary source emissions; no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is
needed, and exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations from
long-term operational impacts is considered less than significant. (Ibid.)
In an effort to reduce estimated emissions, the mitigation measures listed
above were considered. (DEIR at 3.3-42.) MM Air 1 through 4 are associated with
reduction in construction-related emissions for NOX, PM-10 and PM-2.5. (Ibid.)
Although implementation of mitigation measures MM Air 1 through 4, will reduce
Project-generated emissions, there are no distinct SCAQMD established quantitative
reductions associated with them; therefore, to be conservative, it is assumed that there
24438.40000`.7623782.3 47
is no change in the estimated emissions of the Project from those mitigation measures.
(Ibid.) The Project's short-term construction emissions will still exceed the SCAQMD
regional significance thresholds for NOx, PM-10, and PM-2.5. (DEIR at 3.3-42 — 43.)
Short-term construction will also exceed applicable localized significance thresholds
(LST) for PM-10 and PM-2.5. (DEIR at 3.3-43.)
C. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. Induce Substantial Population Growth
Impact: The proposed Project would induce substantial 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. Impacts will
remain significant and unavoidable. . (DEIR at 3.8-6 — 9.)
Finding: No feasible mitigation exists to reduce or eliminate the conversion
of farmland to non-agricultural use. This impact will remain significant and unavoidable.
(DEIR at 3.8-9.)
Supporting Explanation: The SJV-MDP does not include the construction
of new homes or businesses, and therefore will not directly induce substantial
population growth in the Project area. (DEIR at 3.8-6.) The proposed Project may
indirectly induce substantial population growth in the SJV-MDP boundaries by providing
flood control infrastructure, sized to protect the Project area at full build out per the San
Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside County General Plans. (Ibid.)
The proposed MDP facilities have been designed to convey stormwater flows
from areas planned for urban development within San Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside
County. Currently the Project area experiences periodic flooding due to the relatively flat
topography of the area and the inadequacy of existing stormwater drainage facilities.
(Ibid.) The proposed Project includes facilities designed to attenuate peak-flow rates
and create a more efficient stormwater drainage system. (Ibid.) Though the Project
would alter the flow velocity and volume of storm water flows, the proposed SJV-MDP
will result in decreased flood potential in the Project area because the facilities have
been sized and planned in a comprehensive manner taking into account existing and
proposed land uses within the proposed boundaries of the SJV-MDP. (Ibid.) The
proposed project will reduce flooding from stormwater and urban runoff currently
experienced in the project area. (Ibid.)
As a comprehensive, area-wide master drainage plan, the SJV-MDP is sized and
designed to accommodate continued development throughout the San Jacinto Valley.
(Ibid.) New development will be accompanied by construction of both on-site storm
detention basins and related structures in the near term, and construction of master
plan facilities in San Jacinto and Hemet that will accompany longer term improvements
to the San Jacinto River channel. (DEIR at 3.8-6 — 7.)
24438.40000`7623782.3 48
A project could indirectly induce growth by removing barriers to growth, by
creating a condition that attracts additional population or new economic activity, or by
providing a catalyst for future unrelated growth in an area. (DEIR at 3.8-7.) While a
project may have a potential to induce growth, it does not automatically result in growth.
(ibid.) Growth can only happen through capital investment in new economic
opportunities by the public or private sectors. (Ibid.) The land use policies established
by the San Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside County will regulate growth in the Project
area. (Ibid.) Growth induced by a project is considered a significant impact if it directly or
indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if can be
demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some
other way. (ibid.)
The City of San Jacinto General Plan Final EIR (SCH No. 2001111165)
addressed potential environmental impacts, including growth inducement, from
implementation of policies and land use designations as set forth in the San Jacinto
General Plan. (Ibid.) As outlined in the Draft EIR, adoption and implementation of the
San Jacinto General Plan would indirectly induce substantial population growth through
increased residential and non-residential development, resulting in a significant impact.
Findings for the General Plan found for significant cumulative impacts indicate that "The
city Council of the City of San Jacinto, based on substantial evidence in the record,
thereby finds that no mitigation is available to render the effect less than significant.
(Ibid.) The effect therefore remains significant and unavoidable." (ibid.)
The City of Hemet General Plan also addressed potential environmental impacts,
including growth inducement, from implementation of policies and land use designations
as set forth in the San Jacinto General Plan. (ibid.) According to the Hemet General
Plan, there are no strategies specifically designed to mitigate the impacts of the buildout
population; rather, all of the strategies contained in the General Plan can be regarded
as mitigation for the impacts related to population increase, such as additional
infrastructure or increased water use, that result from implementation of the proposed
land use plan. (Ibid.)
Housing impacts related to projected growth in the Hemet area are potentially
significant. (ibid.) However, housing conditions and characteristics, such as
overcrowding and unsound units, will improve through implementation of the strategies
contained in the General Plan. (Ibid.) In addition, the condition of the homeless in the
study area is likely to improve through implementation of the goals and strategies in the
Housing Element. (Ibid.) Therefore, the impacts to housing as a result of the Project can
be mitigated to below a level of significance. (Ibid.)
The Riverside County General Plan Final EIR October 2003 (SCH No.
2002051143) and its associated Statement of Overriding Considerations document
(October 7, 2003) addressed potential environmental impacts, including growth
inducement, from implementation of policies and land use designations set forth in the
General Plan. (DEIR at 3.8-8.) As outlined in the Riverside County General Plan Final
EIR, development following the General Plan would result in growth. Based on the
definition of growth inducement, a General Plan is inherently growth inducing. (Ibid.)
24438.40000 7623782.3 49
The growth permitted by the General Plan leads to various significant unavoidable
adverse impacts. (Ibid.) The General Plan is a master plan providing the framework by
which public officials will be guided on making decisions relative to development within
Riverside County. (Ibid.) However, it is the implementation of land use policies that will
incrementally increase demands for public services, utilities, and infrastructure, and the
need for medical, educational, and recreational facilities. Riverside County has the land
use authority and has adopted a FEIR, findings and a Statement of Overriding
Consideration for such growth. (Ibid.)
The proposed Project could indirectly induce growth by removing one potential
barrier to growth, by providing planned drainage infrastructure. (Ibid.) The City of San
Jacinto, the City of Hemet, and the County of Riverside General Plans outline the type
of development and growth that will be allowed in the area. (Ibid.) Thus, potential
indirect impacts from development in the Project area are not expected to exceed the
potential impacts that have already been disclosed in their General Plan EIRs. (Ibid.)
Yet, because implementation of the proposed Project could indirectly induce substantial
population growth in San Jacinto, Hemet, and portions of unincorporated Riverside
County, impacts are considered significant. (Ibid.)
SECTION 5: RESOLUTION REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
The cumulative impact analysis for the proposed Project is based on information
contained in the San Jacinto General Plan, San Jacinto General Plan EIR (SCH No.
2001111165), Hemet General Plan, Hemet General Plan EIR (SCH 90020515),
Riverside County General Plan, and Riverside County General Plan Final EIR (SCH No.
2002051143) certified by the respective jurisdictions. (DEIR at 5.0-2.) These documents
are utilized because the geographic area addressed in these documents encompasses
the proposed boundaries of the SJV-MDP, and all portions of the surrounding area that
could be potentially impacted by the proposed Project's contribution to cumulative
impacts. (Ibid.)
A. AESTHETICS
There are no State Designated Scenic Highways within the Project area. (Ibid.)
The closest State Designated Scenic Highway is Highway 243 (Banning/Idyl[wild
Panoramic Highway), which is located over seven and one-half miles northeast of the
Project's northeastern boundary. (Ibid.) Therefore, the SJV-MDP will not impact State
Eligible Scenic Highways. (Ibid.) Ramona Expressway, Gilman Springs Road, State
Route 79, and Soboba Road, which are located in proximity to the Project area, are
designated County Eligible Scenic Highways in the San Jacinto Valley Area Plan (COR
SJVAP, Figure 9). (Ibid.) Gilman Springs Road, State Route 79, and Soboba Road are
not located within the boundaries of the SJV-MDP. Ramona Expressway passes
through the Project area. Line 2, portions of Line H, and Line J-3 are proposed to be
located adjacent to the Ramona Expressway. (Ibid.) Line 2 is proposed as an
underground storm drain from Sanderson Avenue to a point approximately 2,000 feet
east of the Ramona Expressway/Sanderson Avenue intersection, and as an open
24438.40000 7623782.3 50
channel from the Ramona Expressway/Sanderson Avenue intersection approximately
one and one-quarter mile west. (Ibid.) Line H is a storm drain that would cross the
Ramona Expressway at State Street. Line J-3 is an open channel, which would be
located adjacent to the Ramona Expressway from the Ramona Expressway/San Jacinto
Avenue intersection approximately 2,750 feet east of said intersection. (Ibid.)
The open channel portions of Line 2 and Line J-3 would be visible to passing
motorists using Ramona Expressway. (DEIR at 5.0-3.) However, this view would be
brief lasting only a few seconds for each facility for motorists traveling between 50 to 55
miles per hours (mph). (Ibid.) The posted speed limit for Ramona Expressway is 55
mph. Due to the limited exposure to these facilities, impacts to a County Eligible
Scenic Highway are considered less than significant. (Ibid.)
Proposed Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project will result in less significant impacts with respect to
aesthetics, no mitigation measures are proposed. (Ibid.)
Summary of Cumulative Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures are
Implemented
The San Jacinto General Plan EIR identified potential cumulative impacts to
scenic views resulting from development per the San Jacinto General Plan. (Ibid.) New
development may increase light and glare, which would have the potential to
significantly impact views from outside of San Jacinto. (Ibid.) Although sources of light
and glare will increase within San Jacinto, any new development will be required to
meet the standards contained in the City's Lighting Regulations that are contained
within the Zoning Ordinance. (Ibid.) Therefore, because the City will mitigate new
sources of light, the City will not cumulatively contribute a considerable level of
new light and glare (SJGP DEIR, p. 7-2). (Ibid.)
The County of Riverside General Plan Final EIR identified potential cumulative
impacts to scenic views from development in surrounding areas. (Ibid.) Development
would result in the intensification of existing urban uses as well as conversion of open
space into urban land uses. (Ibid.) The intensification of existing urban uses would
result in a less than significant impact. (Ibid.) Whereas, the conversion of open space to
urban uses would result in a significant unavoidable impact. (Ibid.) Therefore,
development per the County of Riverside General Plan will cumulatively contribute
significantly to the loss of visual character if Riverside County. (Ibid.)
The Hemet General Plan EIR concluded that ultimate development planned and
envisioned will fundamentally change the aesthetic character of the Hemet area from
largely open agricultural to more of a typical suburban setting and these impacts cannot
24438.40000 7623782.3 51
be mitigated below a level of significance (HGP EIR, F-5). (Ibid.) However, the portions
of Hemet which are within the boundaries of the SJV-MDP boundary are already
developed with residential and commercial uses. (Ibid.)
The geographic scope for cumulative aesthetics analysis is the SJV-MDP
boundary and immediately adjacent communities and jurisdictions. (Ibid.)
Implementation of the proposed Project will provide drainage infrastructure that could
support development of portions of San Jacinto, portions of Hemet, and portions of
unincorporated Riverside County in accordance with the General Plan for each
jurisdictions. (Ibid.) Development of the Project area will result in the construction of
structures associated with urban development. (Ibid.) This future development will
change the character of the foreground views from vacant, natural open space and
agriculture, to ornamental landscaping and buildings. (Ibid.)
Future development will be subject to the approval process for the jurisdiction in
which it is located, and will be required to comply with all development guidelines and
ordinances regulating building size, type, location, landscaping, and design. (Ibid.)
Since future development will be conditioned and designed to be aesthetically pleasing,
as required by the San Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside County General Plans, indirect
cumulative impacts to aesthetics resulting from the proposed Project are
considered less than significant. (DEIR at 5.0-3 —4.)
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Construction and operation of the proposed basin and channels would result in a
permanent change to Important Farmland, as they are open facilities and must be
maintained in order to retain flood control capacity. (DEIR at 5.0-4.) Construction of the
proposed open channels will be primarily located within or adjacent to road right-of-way
(ROW). (Ibid.) Construction of open channels, will not significantly impact existing
agricultural uses adjacent to the open channel facilities, because limited property within
the footprint of the open channel facilities will be converted to a public, i.e., non-
agricultural use. (Ibid.) Based on the limited direct impacts associated with construction
and operation of the linear open channel facilities, potential impacts to Important
Farmland from the construction of these facilities are less than significant. (Ibid.)
The proposed Line D Basin, which is anticipated to encompass approximately 15
acres, is located within an area identified as being Prime Farmland and Farmland of
Statewide Importance. (Ibid.) Therefore, construction of this facility will result in the
direct conversion of 15 acres of Important Farmland to a non-agricultural use by
converting the property to a flood control facility, which is a potentially significant
impact. (Ibid.)
SJV-MDP conceptual alignment and location of open channels Line 1, Line 2,
Line 3, Line X, and the Line E-Y-Z Confluence Basin are within property under a
Williamson Act contract. (Ibid.) With respect to the proposed open channels,
construction will be primarily located within or adjacent to road ROW. (Ibid.)
Construction of open channels within existing road ROW will not conflict with or require
2443 8.40000,7623 782.3 52
the cancellation of a Williamson Act contract due to the limited direct impacts associated
with construction and operation of the linear open channel facilities. (Ibid.) The
conversion of approximately 6.3 acres of Farmland of Local Importance under a
Williamson Act Contract to a non-agricultural use will be required in the construction of
the Line E-Y-Z confluence basin and will be a direct impact to a Williamson Act
Contract. (Ibid.)
As previously discussed, the proposed Project will provide drainage infrastructure
that could support development of the Project area. (Ibid.) Development of adjacent
areas would result in the direct conversion of farmland (including Important Farmland) to
non-agricultural uses. Consequently, the proposed Project has the potential to indirectly
convert farmland in the Project area. (Ibid.) The portions of the Project area in San
Jacinto, Hemet, and part of the unincorporated portions of the Project area are
designated for non-agricultural land uses in the adopted San Jacinto, Hemet, and
Riverside County General Plans; thus the direct conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural uses would likely occur in the Project area with the build out of the San
Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside County General Plans. (Ibid.)
Because the proposed Project will likely support the conversion of farmland to
non-agricultural uses, impacts are considered potentially significant. (Ibid.)
Summary of Cumulative Environmental Effects from General Plans
The San Jacinto General Plan will allow new development to occur that will
convert existing agricultural resources to non-agricultural uses. (DEIR at 5.0-5.)
Mitigation measures described in Section 5.2 of the San Jacinto General Plan Draft EIR
will reduce impacts to agricultural resources. (Ibid.) However, the new development will
have significant and unavoidable impacts on agricultural resources. (Ibid.) Therefore,
development planned and envisioned by the San Jacinto General Plan will contribute to
the cumulative loss of agricultural resources in San Jacinto. (Ibid.)
Development planned and envisioned in the Riverside County General Plan
would result in the conversion of state-designated farmland as well as land currently
utilized for agricultural productivity to a variety of non-agricultural uses. (Ibid.) The
Riverside County General Plan contains policies of which will reduce or minimize the
effects of future development on agricultural resources. (Ibid.) Because these policies
do not set specific requirements that will limit the conversion of agricultural lands to non-
agricultural uses, and because no feasible or reasonable mitigation was identified to
reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level; impacts to existing
farmland and State-designated farmland remain significant and unavoidable and will
contribute to a cumulative adverse impact (CORGP FEIR, p. 536). (Ibid.)
The City of Hemet General Plan EIR concluded that ultimate development
planned and envisioned will impact almost all of the agricultural soils and farming
activities in support of suburban uses. (Ibid.) Therefore, the ultimate development will
24438.40000.7623782.3 53
have an adverse cumulative regional impact on soil and agricultural resources that
cannot be mitigated below a level of significance (HGP EIR, F-2). (Ibid.) However, the
portions of the Hemet within the boundaries of the SJV-MDP are currently developed
with residential and commercial uses. (Ibid.) Therefore, the Project will not cumulatively
impact agricultural resources in Hemet. (Ibid.)
Proposed Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were found to be feasible. See Section 3.2 of the Draft
EIR for further discussion. (Ibid.)
Summary of Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures are Implemented
Direct impacts to agricultural land in the Project area include the conversion of
approximately 15 acres of Important Farmland and 6.3 acres of Farmland of Local
Importance associated with the construction of the four basins identified in the SJV-
MDP. (Ibid.) The proposed Project provides a master plan and funding mechanism for
drainage facilities that could support future urbanization as set forth in the San Jacinto,
Hemet, and Riverside County General Plans and could result in the indirect conversion
of Farmland. (Ibid.) Absent active property owner cooperation and substantial financial
incentives, it is highly unlikely that long term agricultural production is viable and would
continue in the Project area, with or without the Project. (Ibid.) Therefore, there are no
feasible mitigation measures that would reduce direct or indirect project impacts
to less than significant levels. (Ibid.) Adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations would be required prior to Project approval. (Ibid.)
C. AIR QUALITY
Based on the regional significance threshold analysis for the proposed Project,
short-term construction emissions will exceed the daily regional thresholds set by
SCAQMD for NOX, PM-10, and PM-2.5 during the construction of various facilities or
combinations of facilities, but will not exceed any other regional criteria pollutant
thresholds. (DEIR at 5.0-6.) Short-term construction impacts are considered
significant. (Ibid.) No long-term MDP operational emissions were evaluated because
the proposed SJV-MDP will not result in a change from the operation of the existing
MDPs for the Project area; therefore, long-term operational impacts are considered
less than significant. (Ibid.)
Based on the LST analysis of the proposed Project, the short-term construction
of the Project will not result in any localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors
within the Project area for NOX or CO; however, emissions of PM-10 and PM-2.5 are
above SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds, and short-term construction impacts
are considered significant. (Ibid.) Due to the lack of stationary source emissions; no
long-term localized significance threshold analysis is needed, and long-term operational
impacts are considered less than significant. (Ibid.)
24438,40000`7623782.3 54
The portion of the SCAB in which the Project is located is designated as a non-
attainment area for ozone, PM-10, and PM-2.5 under both state and federal standards.
(Ibid.) In evaluating the cumulative effects of the Project, Section 21100(e) of CEQA
states that —previously approved land use documents including, but not limited to,
general plans, specific plans, and local coastal plans, may be used in cumulative impact
analysis. In addressing cumulative effects for air quality, the AQMP utilizes approved
general plans; therefore, it is the most appropriate document to use in evaluating
cumulative impacts of the proposed Project. (Ibid.) This is because the AQMP evaluated
air quality emissions for the entire Basin using a future development scenario based on
population projections and set forth a comprehensive program that would lead the
region, including the Project area, into compliance with all federal and state air quality
standards. As described in the NOP for this Project (Appendix A), the Project will not
conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the AQMP. (Ibid.) The Project's short-term
construction emissions for NOX, PM-10, and PM-2.5 have been shown to be significant
on a regional level. However, since it is only the Project's short-term emissions that are
above thresholds for NOX, PM-10, and PM2.5, and the impact is temporary
(approximately six months in duration), the impact is not considered to have a
cumulatively considerable net increase on ozone and PM-10, which are non-
attainment in the region under both state and federal standards, and is considered less
than significant. (Ibid.)
In regards to GHG emissions, the proposed Project's construction emissions and
annual CO2 operational emissions will not exceed the SCAQMD recommended Tier 3
screening level of significance for commercial or industrial projects. (Ibid.) The
SCAQMD additional requirements for energy and water usage do not apply to the
Project. (Ibid.) The CARB has not yet developed a quantitative threshold for commercial
projects and the currently recommended performance standards for construction and
operation of commercial projects also do not apply to the SJV- MDP. (Ibid.) Therefore,
the impact is considered less than significant. (Ibid.)
Summary of Cumulative Environmental Effects from General Plans
The cumulative area for air quality impacts is the South Coast Air Basin (Basin).
(DEIR at 5.0-7.) The portion of the Basin within which the Project is located is
designated as a non-attainment area for ozone, PM-10 and PM-2.5 under both state
and federal standards. (Ibid.)
The San Jacinto General Plan Draft EIR concluded that construction-related
emissions associated with General Plan buildout will exceed SCAQMD thresholds.
(Ibid.) These construction-related emissions will impact cumulative air quality as well
and will be significant and unavoidable (SJGP EIR, p. 7-3). (Ibid.) Regional
emissions, although significant and unavoidable, are more related to the consistency
with SCAG area growth projections than with emissions (SJGP EIR, p. 7-5). (Ibid.)
The Riverside County General Plan Final EIR concluded that buildout per the
Riverside County General Plan would contribute to the regional air pollutant emissions
24438.40000 7623782.3 55
during construction and at build out. (Ibid.) Therefore, the implementation of the
Riverside County General Plan will have significant and unavoidable cumulative air
quality impacts (CORGP FEIR, p. 536). (Ibid.)
The City of Hemet General Plan EIR concluded that ultimate development
planned and envisioned will produce additional air pollutants which will contribute to the
entire Basin and will result in significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality
impacts (HGP EIR, p. F-3). (Ibid.)
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures addressing temporary construction and maintenance
activities have been incorporated into the Project to reduce project-level impacts. (Ibid.)
Cumulative Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures are Implemented
The Project-specific evaluation presented in the Draft EIR demonstrates that,
even with mitigation, projected short-term emissions from construction of Project
facilities are above applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOX, PM-10, and PM-
2.5 for various facilities or combinations of SJV-MDP facilities, but will not exceed any
other pollutant thresholds. (Ibid.) Additionally, short-term emissions from construction of
the Casa Loma Basin, Line E, and Line D-4 will exceed SCAQMD's LST for PM-10
and/or PM-2.5. (Ibid.)
No long-term MDP operational emissions were evaluated because the proposed
MDP will not result in a change from the operation of the existing MDPs for the Project
area. (Ibid.) Additionally, no long-term localized significance thresholds analysis is
needed due to the lack of stationary source emissions. (Ibid.) Since the Project only
exceeds standards during construction (a maximum duration of approximately six
months, and considered a temporary impact), the project is considered cumulatively
less than significant. (Ibid.)
Regarding global climate change and GHG emissions as discussed above, even
in the absence of the Project, the impacts associated with global climate change will still
exist, however due to the fact that the project's GHG emissions are temporary (only
occur during construction; a maximum duration of approximately six months) and are
well below the SCAQMD threshold, the Project's contribution to global climate
change is not considered cumulatively considerable. (DEIR at 5.0-7 — 8.)
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Several special-status plant species have low to high potential for occurrence
along alignments within the Project area. (DEIR at 5.0-8.) Plant species with a high
potential to occur on site include Smooth tarplant and Coulter's goldfields. Locations of
smooth tarplant were detected along the alignments including Line V, Line Y and Lat Y-
4 through Lat Y-7. (Ibid.) Additionally, approximately half of the Project area is located
within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) 3. (Ibid.) However, no
24438.40000 7623782.3 56
narrow endemic plant species were observed within the Project area during the surveys.
Project-specific surveys would be required during the appropriate time of the year to
determine the presence/absence of all Narrow Endemic Plants and Criteria Area Plants.
(Ibid.)
The Project area contains trees, shrubs, ground cover, and structures that
provide suitable habitat for nesting migratory birds, including raptors. (Ibid.) The
MSHCP does not allow for the take of active nests. (Ibid.) If any vegetation or structures
are to be removed during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), facility-specific
nesting bird surveys shall be conducted first to determine the presence/absence of
active nests. (Ibid.) If active nests are identified, appropriate avoidance buffers should
be established in the nesting activity has completed, and fledglings have left the nest
and are no longer dependent on the parents. (Ibid.) Portions of the Project area may
provide suitable nesting habitat for burrowing owls. (Ibid.) Focused surveys for
burrowing owl were conducted on July 31, and August 7, 8, 11, 12, 20, 22, and August
26, 2008. (Ibid.) No burrowing owls were identified within the facility alignments or basin
locations. (Ibid.) Though no burrowing owls were detected during the focused surveys,
much of the Project area has a moderate to high probability to support owls, whether
breeding pairs, resident individuals, or transient individuals. (Ibid.) Future habitat
assessments and focused surveys (if suitable habitat/burrows are present) shall be
required for areas that could not be accessed for the current study. (Ibid.) In addition,
updated facility-specific focused surveys should be conducted for areas that have been
previously surveyed. (Ibid.)
San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) (Dipodomys merriami parvus) was
determined to have a low potential to occur within the Project area. (Ibid.) Los Angeles
pocket mouse (LAPM) (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) was also determined to
have a low potential to occur within the Project area. (Ibid.) However, with
implementation of mitigation measure MM Bio 8, survey and conservation requirements
pursuant to Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, potential impacts from the proposed
Project are considered less than significant. (Ibid.)
Approximately 6.38 acres of riparian habitat were mapped by the biologists within
the Project alignments, and contained native riparian vegetation including willow, mule
fat, and Freemont's cottonwood. (Ibid.) The riparian areas that were mapped ranged
from roadside/agricultural ditches, to ponds and basins, but also included the edge of
extensive riparian habitat associated with the San Jacinto River. (Ibid.) Some of the
mapped areas qualify as MSHCP Riparian Areas, though others would likely be
excluded due to their artificial nature. (Ibid.) Facility-specific mapping would be required
to determine which areas may be subject to MSHCP requirements, and which may not.
(Ibid.)
The Project area contains waters subject to jurisdictions of: (i) the U.S. ACOE
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA); (ii) the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to Section 401 of CWA or pursuant to the California
Porter-Cologne Act; and/or (iii) CDFG pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish
24438,40000`7623782.3 57
and Game code. (DEIR at 5.0-9.) Features with the potential for jurisdiction were
mapped, including agricultural ditches and other roadside ditches, basins, etc. (ibid.)
Facility-specific jurisdictional delineations will need to be conducted to determine
whether features would be subject to the jurisdictions of the ACOE, RWQCB, and
CDFG. (Ibid.) With implementation of MM Bio 3, potential impacts to federally
protected wetlands are reduced to less than significant levels. (Ibid.)
Summary of Cumulative Environmental Effects from General Plans
The geographic scope for cumulative biological impacts is the Western Riverside
County MSHCP area. (Ibid.) Development per the San Jacinto General Plan will have
the potential to impact biological resources, which could diminish the amount of
biological resources within the MSHCP region. (Ibid.) However, the San Jacinto General
Plan is consistent with and will facilitate implementation of the applicable policies and
programs identified in the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Additionally, the General Plan includes
numerous objectives and policies designed to reduce impacts to biological resources
over the long term. (Ibid.) Therefore, implementation of these programs and policies and
mitigation described in the San Jacinto General Plan will manage and reduce impacts to
biological resources within San Jacinto to a less than significant level. (Ibid.) Thus,
buildout per the San Jacinto General Plan will not create significant cumulative
impacts to biological resources. (Ibid.)
The development planned and envisioned under the Riverside County General
Plan would result in the loss of extensive areas of natural habitats and associated
biological resources. (Ibid.) Implementation of Riverside County General Plan policies
and mitigation measures identified in the Riverside County General Plan EIR will reduce
the impacts to below a level of significance. (Ibid.) Additionally, the MSHCP will provide
mitigation for development impacts to threatened and endangered species through the
Western Riverside County by way of development fee and property acquisition. (Ibid.)
Hemet General Plan EIR concluded that ultimate development planned and
envisioned will eliminate native as well as sensitive plants and animals from the Hemet
area. (Ibid.) Although the Hemet General Plan contains policies to help preserve
biological resources, the Hemet General Plan EIR, which was certified prior to approval
of the MSHCP, concluded Hemet General Plan these policies cannot mitigate
cumulative regional loss of biological habitat below a level of significance (HGP EIR, p.
F-3). (Ibid.) However, subsequent to the adoption of Hemet General Plan EIR, Hemet
became a permittee under the MSHCP and is obligated to comply with its provisions.
(Ibid.) Since, the MSHCP provides mitigation for development impacts to threatened
and endangered species through the Western Riverside County by way of development
fee and property acquisition, buildout per the Hemet General Plan will not create
significant cumulative impacts to biological resources. (Ibid.)
Proposed Mitigation Measures
24438.40000 7623782.3 58
Mitigation measures addressing construction and maintenance will be
incorporated into the project to reduce project-level biological impacts. (DEIR at 5.0-10.)
The proposed Project must also comply with the adopted Western Riverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). (Ibid.) To address the potential
impacts associated with the cumulative loss of habitat for special status wildlife the
proposed project shall comply with all pertinent MSHCP requirements. (Ibid.)
Summary of Cumulative Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures are
Implemented
The Riverside County MSHCP Environmental Impact Report Section 5.1.1,
Cumulative Impact Analysis, Biological Resources, evaluated the cumulative effects of
the proposed MSHCP and alternatives on biological resources. (Ibid.) In particular, the
analysis focuses on the cumulative effects of the proposed MSHCP with the regional
growth forecasts. (Ibid.)
Through compliance with the MSHCP, the Project will not result in a cumulative
adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any of the Covered
Species listed in the Plan as implementation of the MSHCP benefits Covered Species
by preserving their habitat in order to address their life cycle needs. (Ibid.) Thus,
through compliance with the MSHCP and based on the features of the MSHCP itself,
impacts to Covered Species are mitigated below a level of significance. (Ibid.)
Implementation of the MSHCP will result in cumulatively significant impacts on
the Non- Covered Species because the issuance of incidental take permits will remove
an impediment to development outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area. (Ibid.) Non-
Covered Species would receive little or no protection outside the reserves under
existing ordinances and regulations. (Ibid.) However, within the Project area, there are
no threatened or endangered species known or likely to be on site, which are not on the
146-species list covered by the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Therefore, impacts to Non- Covered
species are cumulatively less than significant. (Ibid.)
The Project will not cause adverse cumulative effects related to the reduction
of sensitive vegetation communities; as the project is located within the MSHCP Plan
Area and the Plan itself is designed to preserve sufficient acreage of the sensitive
vegetation communities present in western Riverside County. (Ibid.) Similarly, the
Project will not cause adverse cumulative effects related to interference with the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or obstruction of
genetic flow for the identified Planning Species. (Ibid.) Part of the purpose and goals of
the MSHCP is to use regional planning efforts to assemble a reserve that will preserve
contiguous blocks of habitat in large enough areas to ensure that the reserve will allow
movement of species and flow of genetic information. (Ibid.)
The proposed Project will not cause adverse cumulative impacts by conflicting
with the provisions of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities
Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan
24438.40000 7623782.3 59
either within or outside of the Plan area. (Ibid.) The MSHCP has been written
specifically to complement existing HCPs, such as the Stephens' kangaroo rat long-
term HCP. (Ibid.) Through compliance with the MSHCP and existing HCPs, local,
regional, and state plans, cumulative impacts are considered less than significant. (Ibid.)
Cumulative effects associated with the proposed MSHCP take authorization
would involve direct loss of habitat and species associated with ground disturbance in
take authorized areas as development occurs in accordance with projected growth.
(DEIR at 5.0-11.) Cumulative indirect effects would occur to species and habitats within
the MSHCP Conservation Area and would be associated with development of proposed
land uses and activities in take authorized areas in proximity to the MSHCP
Conservation Area. (Ibid.) Indirect effects primarily result from adverse "edge effects"
and may be short-term indirect effects related to construction or long-term indirect
effects associated with development or land use practices in proximity to conserved
habitat areas. (Ibid.) Cumulative indirect impacts resulting from construction activities
include dust, noise, and general human presence that may temporarily disrupt species
and habitat vitality and construction-related soil erosion and runoff. (Ibid.) Edge effects
at the boundary between natural lands and human-occupied lands ("urban edge
effects") arise due to human-related intrusions such as lighting, noise, invasive species,
exotic predators (e.g., dogs and cats), hunting, trapping, off-road activities, dumping,
and other forms of recreation and disturbance. (Ibid.) Human-induced edge effects are
generally unfavorable to native species and are considered cumulative as edge
increases throughout the landscape. (Ibid.)
Cumulative significant indirect impacts associated with edge effects and
increased development outside the conservation areas established by the proposed
MSHCP are addressed in the provisions of Section 6.1.4 of the Draft MSHCP. (Ibid.)
Edge effects will result as development occurs in proximity to habitat; however, the
proposed MSHCP contains provisions that will reduce the adverse impacts associated
with edge effects. (Ibid.) The MSHCP provides take authorization for Covered Species.
(Ibid.) The MSHCP would not directly cause edge effects, but it would dictate where
such effects could occur through the reserve assembly process. (Ibid.) Thus, cumulative
indirect impacts associated with edge effects are considered less than significant.
(Ibid.)
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
One historic resource is within the boundaries of a segment of the former San
Jacinto Valley Railway that dates to 1888. (Ibid.) According to the conceptual
alignments and facilities identified in the SJV-MDP, Project-related activities at this
location will be limited to trenching for the installation of an underground storm drain
within the railway ROW. (Ibid.) If construction within the railway ROW is limited to
underground facilities, and does not include the intersection of any facilities with the rail
line or associated railway structures, the Project will not result in the destruction or
relocation of the railway nor will it alter the basic characteristics of the site. (Ibid.)
Therefore, the proposed Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the
24438.40000 7623782.3 C0
significance of the site, the only historical resource encountered in the portions of the
Project footprint studied. (Ibid.)
Portions of the Project footprint were inaccessible to field survey personnel and
could not be surveyed; thus, it is possible that historical resources could be present on
the portions of the Project's footprint that could not be surveyed. (Ibid.) Therefore, to
reduce potential impacts to historical resources that could be present to less
than significant, mitigation measures are implemented. (Ibid.)
Numerous prehistoric—i.e., Native American—archaeological sites have been
found in the area consisting of various amounts of habitation debris such as: ceramic
shards, chippedstone and groundstone tools, debitage, midden soils, fire-affected rock,
and sometimes human remains. (DEIR at 5.0-11 — 12.) Bedrock milling features and,
less frequently, petroglyphs, have been found in the San Jacinto Valley in areas where
bedrock outcrops are present. (DEIR at 5.0-12.) However, no evidence of any
prehistoric archaeological cultural resources was found within or adjacent to that portion
of the Project footprint that could be surveyed. (Ibid.) Additionally, there have been no
archaeological resources identified through records searches or Native American
consultations. (Ibid.) However, since portions of the Project footprint were unable to be
surveyed due to restricted access and Native American monitoring has been requested,
implementation of mitigation measures is required to ensure that impacts to
archaeological resources are less than significant. (Ibid.)
Surficial soils within the Project's footprint consist of alluvium of Recent
(Holocene) age and have a low potential for significant nonrenewable fossil remains.
(Ibid.) However, these younger alluvial sediments are of variable thickness and are
known to rest directly on top of older Pleistocene-age sediments, which have a high
potential to yield significant vertebrate fossil remains. (Ibid.) Therefore, the proposed
Project's potential to impact paleontological resources is determined to be low in the
surficial alluvial sediments but high in the subsurface Pleistoceneage soils. (Ibid.)
Mitigation measures, which relate to excavation and earthmoving activities, are
required to ensure reduce potential impacts with respect to paleontological
impacts to less than significant. (Ibid.)
Summary of Cumulative Environmental Effects from General Plans
The geographic scope for cumulative impacts to cultural resources includes
Riverside County. (Ibid.) Historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources in
Riverside County could be cumulatively impacted by future development, like that which
could occur under the proposed San Jacinto General Plan. (Ibid.) However, San Jacinto
has implemented local policies and programs as well as mitigation that will reduce these
impacts to below a level of significance. (Ibid.) Thus, potential cumulative impacts to
cultural resources will be reduced to a less than significant level (SJGP EIR, p. 7-
6). (Ibid.)
24438.40000+7623782.3 61
Development planned and envisioned in the Riverside County General Plan
would contribute to the growth and urbanization of Riverside County resulting in direct
and/or indirect loss of cultural and paleontological resources. (ibid.) Therefore,
implementation of the Riverside County General Plan will cumulatively contribute
significantly to the loss of these sensitive areas and their resources (CORGP FEIR, p.
537). (ibid.)
Hemet contains a variety of historical or pre-historical importance. (Ibid.)
However, the Hemet General Plan EIR contains mitigation measures that protect the
existing and undiscovered cultural resources. (Ibid.) Therefore, the cumulative impact
to cultural resources associated with the buildout per Hemet's General Plan will
be mitigated to less than significant (HGP EIR, p. F-6). (Ibid.)
Proposed Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project to reduce potential
project-level impacts. (Ibid.) Additional mitigation measures addressing potential
cumulative impacts are unnecessary. (ibid.)
Summary of Cumulative Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures are
Implemented
Impacts related to historic and archaeological resources were found to be less
than significant within the portions of the Project footprint surveyed. (DEIR at 5.0-13.)
Mitigation measure MM Cultural 1 requires documentation of affected segments of the
former San Jacinto Railway in the event implementation of the Project results in the
construction of above ground facilities within in railway ROW or Project facilities
intersect railway ROW. (ibid.) Mitigation measure MM Cultural 2, requires
archaeological and paleontological field surveys be performed on any facility footprint
not previously surveyed prior to construction to ensure that no impacts to unknown
archaeological or paleontological resources result from Project implementation. (Ibid.)
Mitigation measure MM Cultural 3 requires a qualified archaeologist to determine an
appropriate course of action in the event that unanticipated buried cultural resources are
encountered. (ibid.)
Since the Project area falls within the bounds of the Soboba Band's Tribal
Traditional Use Areas, mitigation measure MM Cultural 4 requires coordination with
Native American groups to allow a monitor to be present during all ground-disturbing
work in potentially sensitive areas. (Ibid.)
No unique geologic feature is known to exist and no fossils have been
documented in the Project footprint. (Ibid.) However, the Project footprint is underlain by
deposits that could potentially have a high sensitivity for paleontological resources.
(Ibid.) Paleontological specimens taken from rock similar to that of the project area
have, in the past, contributed to scientific understanding of the distant past and,
therefore, could be considered unique resources. (Ibid.) Consequently, ground-
24438,40000,7623782.3 E2
disturbing activities resulting from construction of the proposed project could damage or
destroy previously undocumented unique fossils, if located within the project footprint.
Mitigation measures MM Cultural 5 through MM Cultural 8 outline specific measures
that will be taken if certain soil types or any artifacts are unearthed during construction
activities. (ibid.) Therefore, through implementation of proposed mitigation
measures, potential cumulative impacts to cultural resources will be reduced to
less than significant. (Ibid.)
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Based on the results of the EDR report, the Project proposed facilities are within
close vicinity of 27 sites classified as hazardous materials sites under various regulatory
statuses. Sites listed on the HAZNET, FINDS, CLEANERS, Small Quantity Generators
(SQGs), Large Quantity Generators (LQGs), UST, HIST UST, RCRA, and/or TRIS
databases only pose a potential problem in the event of a spill or leak. (Ibid.)
Consequently, unless these sites also appear on a list of contaminated sites, there is no
evidence of any problems at this time. (Ibid.)
Although no significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are
anticipated from the Potentially Contaminated Sites, or from Project-related construction
and operations, common types of unanticipated existing contamination (resulting from
prior leaking underground storage tanks, poor chemical handling or
accidental/intentional unauthorized chemical releases) could be encountered during the
construction of proposed facilities. (Ibid.) Therefore, through implementation of
proposed mitigation measures, potential impacts will be reduced to less than
significant levels. (Ibid.)
Summary of Cumulative Environmental Effects from General Plans
The geographic scope for cumulative impacts to hazards and hazardous
materials includes Riverside County. (DEIR at 5.0-14.) As future development occurs
within San Jacinto, Hemet, and within Riverside County, the population will rise and the
number of people exposed to hazards related to hazardous materials, flooding, and fires
will increase. (Ibid.) The cumulative impact of regional development on public safety is
potentially significant. (Ibid.) However, San Jacinto will implement mitigation identified in
the San Jacinto General Plan EIR that will reduce these impacts to less than significant.
(Ibid.) In addition, cumulative hazards impacts will be limited by public safety policies
and programs implemented by other Riverside County jurisdictions. (Ibid.) These
programs establish policies to ensure that planned land uses are compatible with the
surrounding natural and urban environment and hazardous conditions are minimized.
(Ibid.) Enforcement of state, county, and local hazardous material regulations will
reduce significant public health hazards to a less than significant level. (Ibid.) Thus,
development per the San Jacinto General Plan will not create significant cumulative
impacts to hazards and hazardous materials (SJGP EIR, p. 7-6). (Ibid.)
Development planned and envisioned in accordance with the Riverside County
General Plan would cumulatively increase the intensity of development in Riverside
24438.40000 7623782.3 C3
County. (ibid.) However, compliance with federal, State, and local regulations
concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials and/or waste would reduce
the potential for significant public health and safety impacts from hazardous materials to
occur. (Ibid.) Therefore, the impact of the planned development under the General Plan
in addition to future development in surrounding areas is not expected to affect
significantly the number of people exposed to public health and safety risks from
exposure to hazardous materials (COR GP FEIR, p. 537). (ibid.)
Development planned and envisioned under the City of Hemet General Plan will
introduce new industrial uses and commensurate increase in commercial and
residential uses which will generate increased amounts of hazardous materials. (ibid.)
However, policies contained in the Hemet and San Jacinto General Plans will
effectively mitigate potential cumulative impacts to less than significant (HGP
EIR, p. F-5). (ibid.)
Proposed Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project was found to have less than significant impacts without the
need for mitigation measures. (Ibid.) Compliance with the adopted mitigation measures
contained in the Riverside County and City of Perris general plans and existing water
resource regulations will reduce potential cumulative impacts associated with future
offsite development. (ibid.) Additional mitigation measures addressing potential
cumulative impacts are unnecessary. (ibid.)
Summary of Cumulative Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures are
Implemented
Risks associated with hazardous materials are generally site-specific and
localized, and are thus limited to the Project site. (Ibid.) As such, the potential for
cumulative impacts to occur is limited. (ibid.) Due to the historic agricultural use of the
Project property, an environmental regulatory database search was conducted to focus
on the presence of above and underground storage tanks, potential for contaminated
soil and/or groundwater, and evidence of poor material handling and/or storage which
may have resulted in soil and/or groundwater contamination within the Project area.
(Ibid.) Based on the results of the report, the proposed Project footprint exhibits no
evidence of recognized environmental conditions related to hazardous materials that
would prohibit project implementation or cause environment impacts from project
construction or operation. (DEIR at 5.0-14 — 15.) The Project was found to have less
than significant impacts related to the public or the environment from the accidental
release of hazardous materials. (DEIR at 5.0-15.)
The geographical context for the cumulative impact analysis is SJV-MDP Project
boundary. (Ibid.) Although each development site has potentially unique hazardous
materials considerations, it is expected that future development within the San Jacinto,
Hemet, and surrounding unincorporated Riverside County will generally comply with the
range of federal, state, and local statutes and regulations applicable to hazardous
24438.40000`.7623782.3 64
materials, and will be subject to existing and future programs of enforcement by the
appropriate regulatory agencies. (ibid.) For these reasons, cumulative impacts to the
public or environment resulting from the accidental release of hazardous materials
would be less than significant. (Ibid.) Consequently, the proposed Project's impact to
the public or environment associated with the release of hazardous materials
would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus not significant. (Ibid.)
G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The Project's impacts to hydrology and water quality were found to be less than
significant since the SJV-MDP includes features that will reduce potential impacts to
water quality. (Ibid.) The Project is designed to improve drainage, and the proposed
detention basins will reduce velocities, erosion, siltation, and flooding within the Project
area. (ibid.)
Summary of Cumulative Environmental Effects from General Plans
The geographic scope for cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality is
the San Jacinto River Basin. (Ibid.) As development proceeds in the San Jacinto River
Basin, the amount of pollutants in runoff will increase, this in turn may impact surface
and groundwater quality. (Ibid.) The amount of impervious surfaces will increase as
development proceeds and erosion and sedimentation impacts on surface water will
occur during grading and construction activities (SJGP FEIR, pg. 79). (Ibid.) However,
San Jacinto will implement mitigation described in its General Plan EIR that requires all
new development to implement BMPs in compliance with the Construction Stormwater
Permit and/or San Jacinto's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) Permit to ensure
that impacts to hydrology and water quality are less than significant (SJGP FEIR pg.
80). (ibid.)
Development planned and envisioned in accordance with the Riverside County
General Plan will result in an increase impermeable surfaces that will increase the
volume and rate of storm runoff. (Ibid.) Existing fixed drainage channels in urban areas
may be unable to contain the runoff generated by relatively small, but intense rainfall
events. (Ibid.) Additionally, the increase in stormwater runoff caused by new land uses
has the potential to increase pollutants conveyed to the groundwater basins and surface
waters in creeks and rivers. (ibid.) Through implementation of Riverside County General
Plan Policies, other Riverside County regulations, and NPDES requirements, impacts
to hydrology and water quality will be less than significant (COR FEIR, Section
4.9). (Ibid.)
Summary of Cumulative Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures are
Implemented
With the exception of impacts to local drainage, on a cumulative basis, the
proposed facilities, along with offsite development authorized by the San Jacinto
24438.40000 7623782.3 65
General Plan, Hemet General Plan, and Riverside County General Plan, could
contribute to regional water quality impacts through introduction of urban runoff. (DEIR
at 5.0-16.) However, due to each offsite Project's responsibility to mitigate its individual
water quality impact through compliance with NPDES regulations, the potential
cumulative effects will be less than significant. (Ibid.) Therefore, cumulative impacts to
water quality and the existing drainage pattern (on a regional basis) of the area
from the proposed Project are less than significant. (Ibid.)
The proposed Project includes features that will reduce potential impacts to water
quality. (Ibid.) The proposed detention basins will reduce velocities, erosion, siltation
and flooding in the project area. (Ibid.) The proposed Project was found to have less
than significant impacts without the need for mitigation measures. Compliance with the
adopted mitigation measures contained in the Riverside County, San Jacinto, and
Hemet General Plans and existing water resource regulations will reduce potential
cumulative impacts associated with future offsite development. (Ibid.) Additional
mitigation measures addressing potential cumulative impacts are unnecessary. (Ibid.)
Proposed Mitigation Measures
With the exception of impacts to local drainage patterns, which are significant
and unavoidable, the proposed Project was found to have less than significant impacts
without the need for mitigation measures. (Ibid.) Compliance with existing water
resource regulations will reduce potential cumulative impacts associated with future
offsite development to less than significant; therefore additional mitigation measures
addressing potential cumulative impacts are unnecessary. (Ibid.)
H. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The SJV-MDP does not include the construction of new homes or businesses,
and therefore will not directly induce substantial population growth in the Project area.
(Ibid.) The proposed Project could indirectly induce growth by removing one potential
barrier to growth, by providing planned drainage infrastructure. (Ibid.) The San Jacinto
General Plan, Hemet General Plan, and Riverside County General Plan outline the type
of development and growth that will be allowed in the Project area. (Ibid.) Thus potential
indirect impacts from development in the Project area are not expected to exceed the
potential impacts that have already been disclosed in these General Plan EIRs. (Ibid.)
Yet, because implementation of the proposed Project could indirectly induce
substantial population growth in San Jacinto, Hemet, and portions of
unincorporated Riverside County, impacts are considered significant. (Ibid.)
Summary of Cumulative Environmental Effects from General Plans
The geographic scope for cumulative population and housing is Riverside
County. According to SCAG projections, Riverside County is projected to grow by
24438.40000 7623782.3 66
approximately 1.5 million people over the next 25 years. (Ibid.) Although the land uses
allowed under the San Jacinto General Plan will provide for sufficient land to
accommodate a portion of the region's projected population growth through the
provision of additional housing and employment opportunities, implementation of the
San Jacinto General Plan would allow a large increase in the population that exceeds
the 2030 SCAG projections. (DEIR at 5.0-16 — 17.) As a result, the San Jacinto
General Plan will result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to
population and housing. (DEIR at 5.0-17.)
Development planned and envisioned in the Riverside County General Plan
would result in cumulatively significant population increases. (Ibid.) Although the rate of
growth within Riverside County will be consistent with the SCAG projections,
development permitted under the Riverside County General Plan will cumulatively
contribute significant population increases within the County and region (CORGP
FEIR, p. 536). (Ibid.)
Development planned and envisioned under the Hemet General Plan is expected
to increase population. (Ibid.) However, the Hemet General Plan EIR concluded that
implementation of the housing and land use measures contained in local General Plans
will mitigate these impacts to less than significant. (Ibid.) Therefore, no significant
cumulative impacts are expected due to changes in population, housing, or
household characteristics (HGP EIR, p. F-7). (Ibid.)
Proposed Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were found to be feasible. (Ibid.)
Summary of Cumulative Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures are
Implemented
The proposed Project could indirectly induce substantial population growth in the
San Jacinto Valley areas, by removing an obstacle to development. (Ibid.) The existing
facilities in this area will not provide 100-year flood protection which would remove an
obstacle to growth. (Ibid.) The adopted San Jacinto, Hemet and Riverside County
General Plans outline the type of development and growth that will be allowed in the
Project area. (Ibid.) The proposed Project was planned and sized to provide drainage
facilities and infrastructure consistent with the General Plan land uses. (Ibid.) The
proposed Project's potential indirect impacts would not exceed the impacts that have
already been addressed during the adoption of the San Jacinto General Plan EIR (May
2006), the Hemet General Plan Final EIR (August 1992), or the Riverside County
General Plan Final EIR (October 2003). (Ibid.) Nonetheless, there are no mitigation
measures that would reduce indirect Project impacts to less than significant
levels. (Ibid.) Adoption of a statement of overriding considerations would be
required prior to project approval. (Ibid.)
SECTION 6: RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE
24438.40000`.7623782.3 67
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss "any
significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed
action should it be implemented." (DEIR at 5.0-19.) Generally, a project would result in
significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources.
• The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future
generations to similar uses.
• The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any
potential environmental incidents associated with the project.
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project results
in wasteful use of energy). (Ibid.)
Besides the temporary use of non-renewable resources (e.g., fossil fuels) during
construction, the proposed Project will not result in the use of non-renewable resources.
(Ibid.) Once the SJV-MDP facilities are constructed, the land use within the drainage
facility footprints would need to remain permanently committed to flood control uses,
since adjacent developed areas and infrastructure would depend on the flood control
infrastructure for flood protection. (Ibid.) Thus, the proposed facilities and the previously
described significant impacts to agricultural resources could be considered a significant
irreversible change. (Ibid.) Likewise, the potential indirect growth inducement impacts
could be considered an irreversible change to those portions of the Project area that are
relatively rural and undeveloped. (Ibid.)
SECTION 7: RESOLUTION REGARDING GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires an evaluation of growth
inducing impacts that may result from a Proposed Project. (Ibid.) Growth inducing
impacts can occur when a project places additional stress on a community by directly
inducing economic or population growth that would lead to construction of new
development projects as the same area as the Project. (Ibid.)
Implementation of the SJV-MDP will remove one obstacle to development and
subsequent population growth in the Project area. (DEIR at 5.0-20.) However, the
proposed SJV-MDP facilities are located in areas that are either already developed or
planned for development in the Hemet, San Jacinto, and Riverside County General
Plans. (Ibid.) The portion of the Project within unincorporated Riverside County is
located within the San Jacinto Valley Area Plan. (Ibid.) Land use designations within the
boundaries of the SJV-MDP include: Rural Residential; Low Density, Medium Density,
High Density, and Very High Density Residential; Downtown and Community
Commercial; Industrial, Public Institutional, and Open Space Recreational. (Ibid.)
The EIRs prepared for the San Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside County General
Plans addressed potential environmental impacts, including growth inducement, from
implementation of policies and land use designations set forth in each jurisdiction's
24438.40000 7623782.3 68
General Plan. Development as planned for and envisioned by each General Plans will
result in growth. (Ibid.) The purpose of a General Plan is to identify how and where
growth and development may occur within a jurisdiction. (Ibid.) Therefore; based on the
definition of growth inducement, a General Plan is inherently growth inducing. (Ibid.)
The growth authorized by the San Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside County General Plans
leads to significant unavoidable adverse impacts. (Ibid.)
As stated in the San Jacinto General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2001111165), the
specific intent of the San Jacinto General Plan is to provide for the orderly development
and redevelopment, define the limits of development, and serve as a mechanism to
accommodate and control future development. (Ibid.) The San Jacinto General Plan
EIR further states that increased population and employment resulting from new
residential and non-residential development has the potential to induce growth in areas
outside of San Jacinto (SJGP EIR, pg. 7-9). (Ibid.) After implementation of all of
mitigation measures identified in the San Jacinto General Plan EIR, impacts with
respect to air quality, noise population, and traffic will remain significant and
unavoidable (SJGP EIR, pgs. 7-10 and 7-11). (Ibid.)
As stated in the Hemet General Plan EIR (SCH 90020515), implementation of
the General Plan will result in significant growth; however, the purpose of the Hemet
General Plan is to permit growth in ways deemed desirable by Hemet and to mitigate
effects of such growth. (Ibid.) The Hemet General Plan EIR states that implementation
of the Hemet General Plan will induce growth directly through an increase in housing
units and indirectly through the provision of better roads and infrastructure, and
concludes growth-inducing impacts will be significant but not adverse (HGP EIR, pg. G-
1). (Ibid.) After implementation of all mitigation measures identified in the Hemet
General Plan EIR, impacts with respect to: land resources, water resources, biological
resources, air resources, landforms and topography, flood hazards, aesthetic resources,
school facilities, solid waste, circulation, and agriculture will remain significant and
unavoidable (HGP EIR, pg. B-15). (Ibid.)
As stated in the Riverside County General Plan Final EIR (SCH No.
2002051143) development following the General Plan will result in growth. (Ibid.) The
growth authorized by the Riverside County General Plan will result in significant
unavoidable adverse impacts, such as air quality, biological resources, water resources,
and traffic. (DEIR at 5.0-20 — 21.) The General Plan is a land use master plan providing
the framework by which public officials will be guided on making decisions relative to
development within Riverside County. (DEIR at 5.0-21.) The implementation of the
General Plan's land use policies will incrementally increase demands for the proposed
drainage facilities, public services, utilities, and infrastructure, and the need for medical,
educational, and recreational facilities (COR GP EIR, Section 5.3.3). (Ibid.)
The proposed Project could indirectly induce growth by removing one potential
barrier to growth, by providing flood control infrastructure. (Ibid.) The San Jacinto,
Hemet, and Riverside County General Plans outline the type of development and
growth that will be allowed in the Project area. (Ibid.) Thus, potential indirect impacts
24438.40000'.7623782.3 69
from development in the Project area are not expected to exceed the potential impacts
that have already been disclosed in the San Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside County
General Plan EIRs. (Ibid.) However, because implementation of the proposed SJV-
MDP could indirectly induce substantial population growth in the Project area, impacts
with respect to growth inducement are considered significant. (Ibid.)
SECTION 8: RESOLUTION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
A. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE
SCOPING/ PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
The following is a discussion of the alternatives considered during the scoping
and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis
in the Draft EIR.
Among the factors that are used to consider project alternatives for detailed
consideration in an EIR are whether they would meet most of the basic project
objectives, be feasible, and whether they would avoid or substantially reduce the
significant environmental impacts of the project. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[c].)
Several alternatives were eliminated during the scoping/planning process, either
because they were deemed infeasible or because they were technologically or
environmentally inferior as compared to the proposed Project.
The following objectives have been established for the proposed Project:
1. Provide a single comprehensive MDP that contains a drainage plan for the North
and West Areas and the necessary updates and revisions to the SJMDP and NW
Hemet MDP.
2. In conjunction with ultimate street improvements for the area within the
boundaries of the SJV-MDP, contain the 100-year flood flows and alleviate the
primary sources of flooding within the boundaries of the SJV-MDP.
3. Serve as a guide for the location and size of drainage facilities that need to be
constructed to protect existing development and future development as the area
within the boundaries of the SJV-MDP develops per the San Jacinto General
Plan, Hemet General Plan, the Riverside County General Plan, and specifically,
the San Jacinto Valley Area Plan.
4. Ensure that facility alignments are reserved for future construction of the
drainage facilities identified in the SJV-MDP.
5. Identify facility alignments that do not traverse the Eastern Municipal Water
District (EMWD) Waste Water Treatment Plant.
6. Identify facilities and facility alignments that require the minimal amount of ROW
acquisition in potentially sensitive areas.
7. Identify the most economical combination of facilities taking into consideration
ROW acquisition, construction, and maintenance costs.
8. Identify facilities that will accommodate phased development within the
boundaries of the SJV-MDP
24438.40000`7623782.3 70
9. Create a funding mechanism to help finance the costs of construction of the
facilities identified in the SJV-MDP.
Several alternatives to the proposed Project were considered and rejected as
infeasible. (DEIR at 5.0-23 — 31.) Some of these alternatives were suggested in the
scoping process and from comments to the NOP. (Ibid.) The alternatives considered
and rejected were: (1) West Alternatives 1 through 4; and (2) North Alternatives 1
through 4.
1. West Alternatives 1 through 4
Descriptions:
West Alternative 1 consists of a combination of RCB culverts and open
channels. (DEIR at 5.0-23.) West Alternative 1 begins as a RCB and travels easterly
along Esplanade Avenue. Near the intersection of Esplanade Avenue and Warren
Road, the lateral turns northerly and the alignment continues along the east side of
Metropolitan's San Diego Canal. (Ibid.) At Seventh Street, the facility changes from an
RCB to an open channel, and the alignment continues northerly along the east side of
the MWD San Diego Canal until it reaches Metropolitan's Casa Loma Canal. After
crossing underneath the Casa Loma Canal in a multi cell RCB, the alignment curves
westerly until it reaches Warren Road. From there, it traverses northerly along the east
side of Warren Road until it reaches a point approximately 2,000 feet south of the
intersection of Warren Road and Metropolitan's Colorado River Aqueduct. (Ibid.) From
this point, the alignment travels easterly approximately 2,000 feet and ties into the
Northwest Basin (Webb 2006). (Ibid.)
West Alternative 2 consists of a combination of RCP, RCB culverts, and open
channels with the addition of a detention basin between Cottonwood Avenue and
Metropolitan's Casa Loma Canal. (Ibid.) West Alternative 2 begins as a RCB and travels
easterly along Esplanade Avenue. (Ibid.) Near the intersection of Esplanade Avenue
and Warren Road, the alignment northerly and continues along the east side of
Metropolitan's San Diego Canal. (Ibid.) At Seventh Street, the facility changes from an
RCB to an open channel and the alignment continues northerly along the east side of
Metropolitan's San Diego Canal until it crosses Cottonwood Avenue and enters into a
proposed detention basin. (Ibid.) The proposed basin has a preliminary footprint of 20
acres and is 16 feet deep in order to allow the outlet to cross underneath the Casa
Loma Canal. (Ibid.) The outflow from the basin would be limited to approximately 50 cfs
which would significantly reduce the size of downstream facilities (Webb 2006). (Ibid.)
West Alternative 2 exits the basin underneath the Casa Loma Canal as an RCP
and curves westerly until it reaches Warren Road. (Ibid.) From there, the alignment
continues northerly in Warren Road increasing in size until it turns into an RCB and
continues to travel northerly in Warren Road until it reaches a point approximately 2,000
feet south of the intersection of Warren Road and Metropolitan's Colorado River
Aqueduct; at which point, the alignment travels easterly approximately 2,000 feet and
ties into the Northwest Basin (Webb 2006). (Ibid.)
24438.40000 7623782.3 71
West Alternative 3 consists of a combination of RCP, RCB culverts, and open
channels with the addition of a detention basin between Cottonwood Avenue and the
Metropolitan's Casa Loma Canal and a detention basin on the east side of Warren
Road approximately 2,000 feet south of the intersection of Warren Road and
Metropolitan's Colorado River Aqueduct. Alternative 3 begins as a RCB and travels
easterly along Esplanade Avenue. (DEIR at 5.0-23 — 24.) Near the intersection of
Esplanade Avenue and Warren Road the alignment turns northerly and continues along
the east side of Metropolitan's San Diego Canal. (DEIR at 5.0-24.) At Seventh Street,
the facility changes from an RCB to an open channel, continues northerly along the east
side of Metropolitan's San Diego Canal until it reaches the Metropolitan's Casa Loma
Canal. (Ibid.) After crossing underneath the Casa Loma Canal in a multi cell RCB, the
alignment enters into a proposed detention basin that is north of the Casa Loma Canal
and east of Warren Road. (Ibid.) The proposed basin has a preliminary footprint of 20
acres and will be 18 feet deep. (Ibid.) The outflow from the basin would be limited to
approximately 50 cfs which would significantly reduce the size of downstream facilities
(Webb 2006). (Ibid.)
West Alternative 3 exits the basin and travels northerly in Warren Road
increasing in size until it turns into an RCB; the alignment then continues to northerly in
Warren Road until approximately 2,000 feet south of the intersection of Warren Road
and Metropolitan's Colorado River Aqueduct at which point it enters into a second
proposed detention basin. (Ibid.) This second proposed basin (preliminarily) would have
an approximately 30 acre footprint and be approximately 10 feet deep. (Ibid.) Peak
outflows from the second basin would be reduced to approximately 35 cfs. Flow from
this basin would travel northerly in Warren Road, cross under the Colorado River
Aqueduct, and enter and tie into Line Z, or travel east and enter the Northwest Basin
(Webb 2006). (Ibid.)
West Alternative 4 proposes directing Line D flows southerly of EMWD's Waste
Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) into a large detention basin proposed northerly of
Cottonwood Avenue, southerly of Metropolitan's Casa Loma Canal and easterly of
Metropolitan's San Diego Canal. (Ibid.) The detention basin proposed in this location
would be much larger than that proposed in Alternative 2 due to the increased tributary
area. (Ibid.) Flows from the first detention basin would be greatly reduced (perhaps
down to 50 cfs) and would exit the first basin following a similar underground alignment
as described in Alternative 2 westerly to Warren Road. (Ibid.) The alignment continues
northerly in Warren Road until approximately 2,000 feet south of the intersection of
Warren Road and Metropolitan's Colorado River Aqueduct where it enters into a second
detention basin, which will be very similar to the basin described in Alternative 3 (Webb
2006). (Ibid.)
Impacts: Implementation of West Alternative 1, West Alternative 2, West
Alternative 3, or 4 would result in significant construction related impacts to air quality,
significant direct and indirect impacts to agricultural resources, and significant indirect
impacts to population/housing. (DEIR at 5.0-25.) With respect to air quality impacts, the
24438.40000.7623782.3 72
thresholds for particulate matter will be exceeded if more than one facility is under
construction at any given time. (Ibid.) Many, if not most, of the MDP facilities are
expected to be constructed as part of private development projects within three different
jurisdictions; thus, it is highly unlikely that San Jacinto, Hemet, or Riverside could or
would coordinate construction to reduce construction-related impacts to air quality to
less than significant. (Ibid.)
With respect to agricultural resources, most of the Project area is designated
Farmland and construction of the basins discussed in West Alternatives 1 through 3,
could result in the direct conversion of Farmland to public facilities. (Ibid.) Additionally,
since West Alternatives 1 though 3 could support and encourage planned development
per the Riverside County, San Jacinto, and Hemet General Plans in an area containing
approximately 153 acres of Farmland, implementation of any of these alternatives will
have significant and unavoidable indirect impacts to agricultural resources. (Ibid.)
With respect to population/housing, West Alternatives 1 through 4 will indirectly
induce substantial population growth by removing one potential barrier to growth
through the provision of flood control infrastructure; thus impacts in this regard are
significant and unavoidable. (Ibid.)
Objectives and Feasibility: The four conceptual alternatives for the West Area
described above, were reviewed by San Jacinto and RCFCWCD and West Alternatives
1 through 3 were dismissed from further consideration because West Alternative 4 is
the only alternative that meets the Project objective of identifying facility alignments that
do not traverse EMWD's WWTP (Objective 5). (DEIR at 5.0-24.) The alignment for Line
D in West Alternatives 1 through 3 traverses EMWD's WWTP. (Ibid.) EMWD does not
want an open channel dividing their WWTP property; thus acquisition of ROW to
construct an open channel in this location could be problematic. (Ibid.) Additionally, the
physical constraints associated with running an underground conduit through the
WWTP would make such an alignment extremely difficult to construct. (Ibid.) For these
reasons, the City (as lead agency), RCFCWCD, and EMWD (as the owner of the
property in question) preferred West Alternative 4, which conveyed Line D flows around
the EWMD WWTP (Webb 2006). (Ibid.) However, given the increased size of West
Alternative 4's detention basins, increased costs, especially related to maintenance,
would result and, thus, would not achieve Objective 7. This alternative would also not
avoid the significant impacts associated with the Project.
Finding: The City Council rejects West Alternatives 1 through 4 on the bases (1)
that they would not achieve Project objectives to the same degree as the proposed
Project; (2) that they would not avoid or substantially lessen the impacts associated with
the Project; (3) that each of these bases individually justify the rejection of these
alternatives; and (4) thereby finds that they were not required to be analyzed in further
detail in the DEIR.
2. North Alternatives 1 through 4
Description:
24438.40000`7623782.3 73
North Alternative 1 consists of the following facilities (Webb 2007, pgs. 2 —3):
• Line 1 is an earthen channel that connects to an existing agricultural drainage
ditch just west of the southwesterly edge of the Stage IV Levee. Line 1 traverses
easterly for approximately 6,900 feet until it reaches Sanderson Avenue. Line 1
will cross underneath Sanderson Avenue as a reinforced box culvert. On the
easterly side of Sanderson Avenue, Line 1 connects to a proposed detention
basin. Line 1 will require 14.5 acres of ROW to construct. (DEIR at 5.0-25.)
• Line 2 is an earthen channel that connects to —Line Z. Line 2 runs along the
northerly side of Ramona Expressway for approximately 6,900 feet and will
require 11.2 acres of ROW to construct. (Ibid.)
• The North Alternative 1 Basin is bounded by Sanderson Avenue to the west and
the future alignment of Record Road to the north. The North Alternative 1 Basin
will have an approximate 12.5 acre footprint and have approximately 70 acre-feet
of storage. (DEIR at 5.0-26.)
• Line 3 is a proposed earthen channel that ties into the southwest corner of the
Alternative 1 Basin. Line 3 traverses southerly from the basin along the east side
of Sanderson Avenue for approximately 1,300 feet. From there it traverses in an
easterly direction for approximately 600 feet. Line 3 will pick up flows east of
Sanderson Avenue, west of Line 4A, north of Ramona Expressway, and south of
the future alignment of Record Road. In North Alternative 1 , Line 3 will require
3.0 acres of ROW to construct. (Ibid.)
• Line 4 begins in the northeast corner of the North Alternative 1 Basin. It traverses
along the future alignment of Record Road in a southeasterly direction for
approximately 3,300 feet as an earthen channel. From there it continues along
the future alignment of Record Road for approximately 4,200 feet as an
underground RCB until it reaches the existing alignment of Record Road. From
there it traverses easterly in Record Road for approximately 1,700 feet. In North
Alternative 1, Line 4 will require 8.5 acres of right of way to construct. (Ibid.)
• Line 4A ties into Line 4 approximately 1,900 feet upstream of where Line 4
outlets into the North Alternative 1 Basin. Line 4A traverses southerly
approximately 2,400 feet until it reaches Ramona Expressway. From there Line
4A traverses as an underground conduit in a southeasterly direction along
Ramona Expressway for approximately 1,800 feet. At this point Line 4A turns
and traverses easterly for approximately 1,200 feet. In North Alternative 1, Line
4A will require 5.7 acres of ROW to construct. (Ibid.)
• Line 413 ties into Line 4 approximately 3,250 feet upstream of where Line 4
outlets into the Alternative 1 Basin. Line 4 traverses in an easterly direction as an
underground pipe for approximately 2,150 feet. From there it traverses in a
southerly direction for approximately 800 feet. Since all of Line 4B is
underground in North Alternative 1, it will require an easement for construction
rather than ROW. (Ibid.)
24438.40000'7623782.3 74
North Alternative 1A consists of the following facilities (Webb 2007, pgs. 4—5):
• Line 1 is an earthen channel that connects to an existing agricultural drainage
ditch just west of the southwesterly edge of the Stage IV Levee. Line 1 traverses
easterly for approximately 6,900 feet until it reaches Sanderson Avenue. Line 1
crosses underneath Sanderson Avenue as a reinforced box culvert. On the
easterly side of Sanderson Avenue, Line 1 connects to a proposed detention
basin. Line 1 will handle flows in the —west area northerly on the future
alignment of Record Road and southerly of the Stage IV Levee. Line 1 will also
serve as an outlet for the North Alternative 1A Detention Basin. In North
Alternative 1A, Line 1 will require 14.5 acres of ROW to construct. (Ibid.)
• Line 2 is an earthen channel that connects to —Line Z. Line 2 runs along the
northerly side of Ramona Expressway for approximately 6,900 feet and will
require 11.2 acres of ROW to construct. (Ibid.)
• The North Alternative 1A Basin is bounded by Sanderson Avenue to the west
and the future alignment of Record Road to the north. The Alternative 1A Basin
will have an approximate 12.5 acre footprint and have approximately 70 acre-feet
of storage. (DEIR at 5.0-27.)
• Line 3 is a proposed earthen channel that ties into the southwest corner of the
North Alternative 1A Basin. Line 3 traverses southerly from the basin along the
east side of Sanderson Avenue for approximately 1,300 feet. From there it
traverses in an easterly direction for approximately 600 feet. In North Alternative
1A, Line 3 will require 3.0 acres of ROW to construct. (Ibid.)
• Line 4 begins in the northeast corner of the North Alternative 1A Basin and
traverses easterly along the southerly side of the Stage IV Levee for
approximately 5,000 feet as an earthen channel. From there it continues a
reinforced box culvert in a southerly direction for approximately 1,900 feet until it
reaches the future alignment of Record Road and then continues easterly along
Record Road for approximately 3,000 feet as an underground conduit. In North
Alternative 1A, Line 4 will require 12.0 acres of ROW to construct. (Ibid.)
• Line 4A ties into Line 4 approximately 1,300 feet upstream of the North
Alternative 1A Basin and traverses southerly approximately 2,900 feet until it
reaches Ramona Expressway. From there Line 4A traverses as an underground
conduit in a southeasterly direction along Ramona Expressway for approximately
1,800 feet and then turns and traverses easterly for approximately 1,200 feet. In
North Alternative 1A, Line 4A will require 6.0 acres of ROW to construct. (Ibid.)
North Alternative 2 consists of the following facilities (Webb 2007, pgs. 6 —7):
• Line 1 is an earthen channel that connects to an existing agricultural drainage
ditch just west of the southwesterly edge of the Stage IV Levee. Line 1 traverses
easterly for approximately 6,200 feet until it reaches the North Alternative 2
Basin. Line 1 will serve as an outlet for the North Alternative 2 Detention Basin
and will require 11.7 acres of right-of-way to construct. (Ibid.)
• Line 2 is an earthen channel that connects to —Line Z. Line 2 runs along the
northerly side of Ramona Expressway for approximately 6,900 feet and will
24438.40000`7623782.3 75
require 11.2 acres of ROW to construct. Alternative 2 Basin — The Alternative 2
Basin is bounded by Sanderson Avenue to the east and the Stage IV Levee to
the north. The Alternative 2 Basin will have an approximate 13 acre footprint and
have approximately 70 acre-feet of storage. The basin will reduce —middle area
flows from approximately 1,200 cfs to 500 cfs. (Ibid.)
• Line 3 begins in the northeast corner of the North Alternative 2 Basin and
traverses easterly across Sanderson Avenue in a multi-cell RCB culvert. From
there it traverses along the future alignment of Record Road in a southeasterly
direction for approximately 4,200 feet as an earthen channel and then continues
for approximately 4,200 feet as an underground RCB until it reaches the existing
alignment of Record Road, from which point it traverses easterly in Record Road
for approximately 1,700 feet. In North Alternative 2, Line 3 will require 10.4 acres
of ROW to construct. (DEIR at 5.0-27 — 28.)
• Line 3A is a proposed earthen channel that ties into Line 3 on the easterly side of
Sanderson Avenue and traverses southerly from the basin along the east side of
Sanderson Avenue for approximately 2,300 feet, then it traverses in an easterly
direction for approximately 600 feet. In North Alternative 2, Line 3A will require
4.7 acres of ROW to construct. (DEIR at 5.0-28.)
• Line 36 ties into Line 3 approximately 2,800 feet upstream of Sanderson Avenue
and traverses southerly approximately 2,400 feet until it reaches Ramona
Expressway, then traverses as an underground conduit in a southeasterly
direction along Ramona Expressway for approximately 1,800 feet. At this point
Line 3B turns and traverses easterly for approximately 1,200 feet. In North
Alternative 2, Line 36 will require 5.7 acres of ROW to construct. (Ibid.)
• Line 3C ties into Line 3 approximately 4,200 feet upstream of Sanderson Avenue
and traverses in an easterly direction as an underground pipe for approximately
2,150 feet, then traverses in a southerly direction for approximately 800 feet.
Since all of Line 3C is underground in North Alternative 2, it will require an
easement for construction rather than ROW. (Ibid.)
North Alternative 2A consists of the following facilities (Webb 2007, pgs. 8 —9):
• Line 1 is an earthen channel that connects to an existing agricultural drainage
ditch west of the southwesterly edge of the Stage IV Levee. Line 1 traverses
easterly for approximately 6,200 feet until it reaches the North Alternative 2A
Basin. In North Alternative 2A, Line 1 will require 11.7 acres of ROW to construct.
(Ibid.)
• Line 2 is an earthen channel that connects to —Line Z. Line 2 runs along the
northerly side of Ramona Expressway for approximately 6,900 feet and require
11.2 acres of ROW to construct. (Ibid.)
• The North Alternative 2A Basin is bounded by Sanderson Avenue to the east and
the Stage IV Levee to the north and will have an approximate 13 acre footprint
and approximately 70 acre-feet of storage. (Ibid.)
• Line 3 begins in the northeast corner of the North Alternative 2A Basin and
traverses easterly across Sanderson Avenue in a multi-cell RCB culvert. From
there it traverses along the southerly side of the Stage IV Levee for
24438,40000 7623782.3 76
approximately 5,900 feet as an earthen channel, then it continues as a reinforced
box culvert in a southerly direction for approximately 1,900 feet until it reaches
the future alignment of Record Road. From there it continues easterly along
Record Road for approximately 3,000 feet as an underground conduit. In North
Alternative 2A, Line 3 will require 13.7 acres of ROW to construct. (Ibid.)
• Line 3A is a proposed earthen channel that ties into Line 3 on the easterly side of
Sanderson Avenue. Line 3A traverses southerly from the basin along the east
side of Sanderson Avenue for approximately 2,300 feet; then it traverses in an
easterly direction for approximately 600 feet. In North Alternative 2A, Line 3A will
require 4.7 acres of ROW to construct. (DEIR at 5.0-28 — 29.)
• Line 3B ties into Line 3 approximately 2,500 feet upstream of Sanderson Avenue
and traverses southerly approximately 2,900 until it reaches Ramona
Expressway; at which point it traverses as an underground conduit in a
southeasterly direction along Ramona Expressway for approximately 1,800 feet.
At this point Line 3B turns and traverses easterly for approximately 1,200 feet. In
North Alternative 2A, Line 3B will require 6.0 acres of ROW to construct. (DEIR
at 5.0-29.)
North Alternative 3 consists of the following facilities (Webb 2007, pgs. 10 —11):
• Line 1 is an earthen channel that connects to an existing agricultural drainage
ditch just west of the southwesterly edge of the Stage IV Levee. Line 1 traverses
easterly for approximately 6,900 feet until it reaches Sanderson Avenue. Line 1
crosses underneath Sanderson Avenue as an RCB. On the easterly side of
Sanderson Avenue, Line 1 traverses along the future alignment of Record Road
in a southeasterly direction for approximately 4,200 feet as an earthen channel,
then it continues along the future alignment of Record Road for approximately
4,200 feet as an underground RCB until it reaches the existing alignment of
Record Road. From there it traverses easterly in Record Road for approximately
1,700 feet. In North Alternative 3, Line 1 will require 34.3 acres of ROW to
construct. (ibid.)
• Line 1A is a proposed earthen channel that ties into Line 1 on the easterly side of
Sanderson Avenue and traverses southerly from the basin along the east side of
Sanderson Avenue for approximately 2,300 feet; then it traverses in an easterly
direction for approximately 600 feet. In North Alternative 3, Line 1A will require
4.7 acres of ROW to construct. (ibid.)
• Line 1 B ties into Line 1 approximately 2,800 feet upstream of Sanderson Avenue
and traverses southerly approximately 2,400 feet until it reaches Ramona
Expressway, then it traverses as an underground conduit in a southeasterly
direction along Ramona Expressway for approximately 1,800 feet. At this point
Line 1B turns and traverses easterly for approximately 1,200 feet. In North
Alternative 3, Line 1 B will require 5.7 acres of right-of-way to construct. (Ibid.)
• Line 1C ties into Line 1 approximately 4,200 feet upstream of Sanderson Avenue
and traverses in an easterly direction as an underground pipe for approximately
2,150 feet, then it traverses in a southerly direction for approximately 800 feet.
24438.40000 7623782.3 77
Since all of Line 1 C is underground in North Alternative 3, it will require an
easement for construction rather than ROW. (Ibid.)
• Line 2 is an earthen channel that connects to —Line Z. Line 2 runs along the
northerly side of Ramona Expressway for approximately 6,900 feet and will
require 11.2 acres of ROW to construct. (Ibid.)
North Alternative 4 consists of the following facilities (Webb 2007, pgs. 11 —12):
• Line 1 is an earthen channel that connects to an existing agricultural drainage
ditch just west of the southwesterly edge of the Stage IV Levee and traverses
easterly for approximately 6,900 feet until it reaches Sanderson Avenue. Line 1
crosses underneath Sanderson Avenue as a multi-cell reinforced box culvert. On
the easterly side of Sanderson Avenue, Line 1 traverses along the future
alignment of Record Road in a southeasterly direction for approximately 6,800
feet as an earthen channel until it reaches the MWD Colorado River Aqueduct
and traverses easterly along the Colorado River Aqueduct as an underground
conduit for approximately 3,800 feet until it reaches State Street, at which point it
connects to Line H of the SJMDP. In North Alternative 3, Line 1 will require 65.1
acres of ROW to construct. (DEIR at 5.0-30.)
• Line 1A is a proposed earthen channel that ties into Line 1 on the easterly side of
Sanderson Avenue and traverses southerly from the basin along the east side of
Sanderson Avenue for approximately 2,300 feet, then it traverses in an easterly
direction for approximately 600 feet. Line 1A will require 4.7 acres of ROW to
construct. (Ibid.)
• Line 1 B ties into Line 1 approximately 2,800 feet upstream of Sanderson Avenue
and traverses southerly approximately 2,400 feet until it reaches Ramona
Expressway. From there Line 1 B traverses as an underground conduit in a
southeasterly direction along Ramona Expressway for approximately 1,800 feet,
at which point Line 1 B turns and traverses easterly for approximately 1,200 feet.
In North Alternative 4, Line 1 B will require 5.7 acres of right-of-way to construct.
(Ibid.)
• Line 1 C ties into Line 1 approximately 4,200 feet upstream of Sanderson Avenue
and traverses in an easterly direction as an underground pipe for approximately
2,150 feet, then it traverses in a southerly direction for approximately 800 feet.
Since all of Line 1C is underground in Alternative 4, it will require an easement
for construction rather than right-of-way. Line 2 is an earthen channel that
connects to —Line Z. Line 2 runs along the northerly side of Ramona
Expressway for approximately 6,900 feet and will require 11.2 acres of ROW to
construct. (Ibid.)
Impacts: Implementation of North Alternative 1, North Alternative 2, North
Alternative 2A, North Alternative 3, and North Alternative 4, would result in significant
construction related impacts to air quality, significant direct and indirect impacts to
agricultural resources, and significant indirect impacts to population/housing. (DEIR at
5.0-31.) With respect to air quality impacts, the thresholds for particulate matter will be
exceeded if more than one facility is under construction at any given time. (Ibid.) Many,
24438.40000 7623782.3 78
if not most, of the SJV-MDP facilities in the North Area are expected to be constructed
as part of private development projects within San Jacinto or Riverside County. (ibid.) It
is unlikely that these two jurisdictions could or would coordinate construction to reduce
construction-related impacts to air quality to less than significant. (ibid.)
With respect to agricultural resources, most of the North Area is designated
Farmland and construction of the facilities to serve the North Area could result in direct
impacts to Farmland. (Ibid.) Additionally, since North Alternatives 1, 2, 2A, 3, and 4
could support and encourage planned development per the Riverside County and San
Jacinto General Plans in an area containing approximately 758 acres of Farmland,
implementation of any of these alternatives will have significant and unavoidable indirect
impacts to agricultural resources. (Ibid.)
With respect to population/housing, North Alternatives 1, 2, 2A, 3, and 4 will
indirectly induce substantial population growth by removing one potential barrier to
growth through the provision of flood control infrastructure; thus impacts in this regard
are significant and unavoidable. (Ibid.) Since North Alternatives 1 , 2, 2A, 3, and 4 would
result in significant unavoidable impacts to air quality, agricultural resources, and
population/housing, these alternatives were eliminated from further study in this Draft
EIR. (Ibid.)
Objectives and Feasibility: Based on the conceptual level analysis completed for
the North Alternatives, from an engineering perspective, North Alternatives 1, 1A, 2, and
2A are preferable to North Alternatives 3 and 4 because the retention basins proposed
in North Alternatives 1, IA, 2, and 2A achieve the Project objective of accommodating
phased development within the boundaries of the SJV- MDP. (DEIR at 5.0-30.) North
Alternatives 1 and 1A are slightly preferable to Alternatives 2 and 2A in that the crossing
of Sanderson Avenue will be easier with facilities included in these alternatives since
flows will be reduced upstream of Sanderson Avenue. (Ibid.) Alternatives 1A and 2A
propose a narrower channel adjacent to Record Road, which is preferable from an
engineering standpoint North Alternatives 1A and 2A are better than North Alternatives
1 or 2. (DEIR at 5.0-30 — 31.) Economically, there is not a significant difference between
the top alternatives. Environmentally they are very similar. (DEIR at 5.0-31.) From an
engineering standpoint, North Alternative 1A and 2A are also very similar. San Jacinto
(as lead agency) and RCFCWCD have selected North Alternative 1A to be included in
the SJV-MDP since this alternative is the most conducive to phased development
(Webb 2007, pg. 14); thus, North Alternatives 1, 2, 2A, 3, and 4 were eliminated from
further detailed study. (Ibid.)
Finding: The City Council rejects North Alternatives 1 through 4 (but not North
Alternative 1 a) on the bases (1) that they would not achieve Project objectives to the
same degree as the proposed Project; (2) that they would not avoid or substantially
lessen the impacts associated with the Project; (3) that each of these bases individually
justify the rejection of these alternatives; and (4) thereby finds that they were not
required to be analyzed in further detail in the DEIR. Alternative 1a is hereby
incorporated into the Project.
24438.40000`.7623782.3 79
B. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS
The CEQA Guidelines indicate that an EIR must "describe a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain
most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of
the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the
alternatives." (Guidelines § 15126[a].) Accordingly, the alternatives selected for review
pursuant to the EIR focus on: (a) the specific general plan policies pertaining to the
project site, and (b) alternatives that could eliminate or reduce significant environmental
impacts to a level of insignificance, consistent with the project objectives (i.e. the
alternatives could impede the attainment of project objectives). The alternatives
analyzed in the following sections include:
• No Project Alternative (Existing Adopted ADPs/MDPs)
• Revise Existing MDPs Alternative
1. No Project Alternative
Description: The No Project Alternative includes implementation of the SJMDP
(revised 1990) and NW Hemet MDP (1985), as previously adopted. (DEIR at 5.0-32.)
The majority of the open channels proposed in these existing plans consist of both lined
and unlined facilities. (ibid.) In general, the lined channels are trapezoidal in shape with
concrete paving on the side slopes and bottom. (Ibid.) The sides slope upward from the
bottom at a rate of one foot vertically for every 1.5 feet horizontally. (ibid.) A few of the
proposed lined channels also consist of lined rectangular channel sections. (Ibid.) The
lined trapezoidal channels in these plans generally range in size from a bottom width of
2 feet to 40 feet and in depth from 3 feet to 10 feet. (Ibid.) The proposed unlined
channels are also trapezoidal in shape with generally flatter side slopes running 3 feet
horizontally for every 1 foot of rise. (Ibid.) The channel right-of-way required will
accommodate the channel as well as one or two maintenance roads. (ibid.) The
proposed underground storm drains consist of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) ranging
in size from 30 inches to 102 inches in diameter. Some sections of the proposed
underground storm drains also consist of RCB. (Ibid.)
Under the previously adopted SJMDP, Lines C, D-2, and G would not be
realigned; Line G-3a and G-3 would not be combined; Line E would continue to outlet
into the San Jacinto River. (DEIR at 5.0-34.) The SJMDP does not include N Line E-2,
N Line E-3, and three laterals along Line E (Kirby Lateral, Lyon Avenue Lateral, and 7th
Street Lateral). (Ibid.) Under the No Project Alternative, N Line E-2, N Line E-3, and
three laterals along Line E would not be added to the SJMDP. (Ibid.)
Under the previously adopted NW Hemet MDP, N Line D would remain an above
ground facility and would never be constructed since development has already occurred
along its alignment. (Ibid.) N Line D would terminate west of the intersection of Cawston
and Cottonwood Avenues at the Casa Loma Basin, and Line D north of Cottonwood
Avenue (shown on the SJV- MDP as Line V) would be a concrete lined-channel. (Ibid.)
2443 8.400 00.7623 782.3 80
Under the No Project Alternative, N Line D would not be revised to be an underground
facility, Line D north of Cottonwood Avenue (shown on the SJV-MDP as Line V) would
not be revised to be an unlined channel, and the Line D Basin would not be added to
the NW Hemet MDP. (Ibid.)
Under the No Project Alternative no master plan for drainage would be prepared
for those areas outside of the SJMDP and NW Hemet MDP and the following facilities
would not be constructed: Lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6; Lateral 4-A; the North Basin; Casa
Loma Basin; Line X, Y, Y-1, W, and Z; Laterals D-1, X-1; and Laterals Y-1 to Y-13.
(Ibid.)
Impacts:
Aesthetics
Same as the Project: The No Project Alternative does not propose facilities
within one —quarter mile of State Designated Scenic Highways or State Eligible Scenic
Highways. The facilities in the vicinity of a County Eligible Scenic Highway (Ramona
Expressway) would be visible for only a few seconds. (DEIR at 5.0-36.) Impacts would
be less than significant.
Agricultural Resources
Better than the Project but still Significant and Unavoidable: No direct
impact would occur as the No Project Alternative does not include basins. Indirect
impacts would occur over a smaller area, since the No Project Alternative does not
propose drainage infrastructure for areas outside of the SJMDP or NW Hemet MDP.
(Ibid.)
Air Quality
Same as Project: Construction of multiple facilities at any given time will likely
still occur. (DEIR at 5.0-37.) Therefore, short-term construction impacts contributing to
exceeding air quality thresholds for particulate matter will result, resulting in significant
and unavoidable short-term impacts. Long-term impacts to air quality will be less than
significant.
Biological Resources
Candidate. Sensitive, or Special-Status Species
Slightly Better than the Project: The No Project Alternative contains less area
with the potential to support special status species. (Ibid.) Impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation.
Riparian Habitat
2443 8.40000'7623782.3 81
Slightly Better than the Project: Although less riparian habitat is present within
the boundaries of the SJMDP and NW Hemet MDP. The No Project Alternative must
comply with the provisions of the MSHCP. (Ibid.) If riparian habitat cannot be avoided,
then a DBESP, with appropriate mitigation, would be required. Impacts would be less
than significant with mitigation.
Federally Protected Wetlands
Slightly Better than the Project: Less potentially jurisdictional areas are
present within the boundaries of the SJMDP and NW Hemet MDP. Any facilities
constructed within jurisdictional areas must comply with the provisions of the MSHCP
and secure appropriate regulatory permits. (Ibid.) Impacts would be less than significant
with mitigation.
Conflict with an HCP
Slightly Better than the Project: The No Project Alternative contains less area
that the MSHCP identifies as requiring facility-specific focused plant surveys. (DEIR at
5.0-38.) If avoidance is not feasible, then approval of a DBESP, with mitigation, would
be required. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Conflict with Local Policies/Ordinances
Same as the Project: The No Project Alternative is required to comply with the
provisions of the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Impacts would be less than significant.
Cultural Resources
Same as the Project: No change in the significance determination from the
proposed Project. Mitigation measures are the same as for the Project. (Ibid.)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Same as the Project: No change in the significance determination from the
proposed Project would occur. Mitigation measures are the same as for the Project.
(Ibid.) With mitigation, impacts would be less than significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Runoff During Construction
Same as the Project: SWPPPs, identifying BMPs to control erosion during
construction would be required in accordance with the General Construction Permit.
Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 5.0-39.)
24438.40000 7623782.3 82
Post-Project Runoff
Worse than the Project: Fewer opportunities for groundwater recharge with
fewer basins would be proposed than under the Project. Runoff from the Project area
outside of the Existing MDPs will sheet flow and agricultural wastes could enter
downstream receiving waters. (Ibid.) Impacts would be potentially significant, and would
require mitigation.
Discharge of Pollutants
Same as the Project: Facilities would either mimic natural drainage, or would
require WQMPs that incorporate BMPs to reduce pollutant loads and achieve post-
development flow rates as close to the pre-development condition as possible. Impacts
would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Drainage
Same as the Project: Facilities would alter local drainage patterns within the
project boundary by redirecting sheet flows from streets and agricultural ditches to
basins, channels, and storm drains. No change in the significance determination from
the proposed Project would occur. (Ibid.) Impacts would be less than significant.
100-Year Flood Hazard Area
Better than the Project: The Existing MDPs proposed fewer facilities within 100-
year flood hazard areas. (DEIR at 5.0-40.) Impacts would be less than significant.
Population and Housing
Better than the Project but still Significant and Unavoidable: Indirect impacts
would occur over a smaller area, since the No Project Alternative does not propose
drainage infrastructure for areas outside of the SJMDP or NW Hemet MDP. (Ibid.)
Objectives and Feasibility: The No Project Alternative does not meet the
objective of a single comprehensive MDP that identifies updates and revisions to the
SJMDP and NW Hemet MDP, and will not will not identify any additional facilities
needed in the SJMDP, NW Hemet MDP, or in those portions of the North and West
Areas outside of the existing MDPs to contain 100-year frequency flood flows
(Objectives 1 and 2). (DEIR at 5.0-40.) This alternative also will not identify any
additional facilities needed in the SJMDP, NW Hemet MDP, or in those portions of the
North and West Areas outside of the existing MDPs to protect existing or future
development (Objective 3). (DEIR at 5.0-41.) The No Project Alternative will only
reserve facility alignments for facilities currently identified in the SJMPD and Hw Hemet
MDP. (ibid.) The No Project Alternative will not identify or reserve facility alignments for
24438.40000'7623782.3 83
any new or upsized facilities needed in the Existing MDPs or much of the North and
West Areas (Objective 4). (Ibid.) The Existing MDPs do not include facilities that
traverse the EMWD Waste Water Treatment Plan; therefore the No Project Alternative
meets this project objective (Objective 5). (DEIR at 5.0-42.) The No Project Alternative
will not identify any new facilities. (Ibid.) Additionally, although the drainage facilities for
those portions of the North and West Areas outside of the boundaries of the Existing
MDPs will be planned on a piece meal basis, the facilities could be sized and located to
minimize the amount of ROW required in potentially sensitive areas (Objective 6). (Ibid.)
The No Project Alternative also does not include any revisions to the Existing MDPs.
(Ibid.) Additionally, this alternative does not provide for a master plan of drainage
facilities for much of the North and West Areas and drainage facilities on these areas
will be planned by various public and private parties on a piece meal basis as
development takes place (Objective 7). (Ibid.) This piece meal approach provides few, if
any, opportunities for identification of the most economical combination of facilities. The
No Project Alternative will not update the current ADP fees in effect or create a funding
mechanism for the North and West Areas (Objectives 8 and 9).(DEIR at 5.0-43.)
Therefore, the No Project Alternative will not meet any of the basic Project objectives.
Finding: The City Council rejects this alternative on the basis that (1) it fails to
meet any of the basic Proposed Project objectives; and (2) finds that this basis provides
sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative. (Ibid.) Therefore, it is eliminated
from further consideration. (Ibid.)
2. Revise Existing MDPs Alternative
Description: The Revise Existing MDPs Alternative consists of revising and
updating the SJMDP and NW Hemet MDP. (DEIR at 5.0-34.) With this alternative, the
SJMDP would be revised as follows: moving Line G-1 300 feet downstream, removal of
Line G between the San Jacinto Reservoir and De Anza. Line G-3 and Line G-3a would
be combined into Line G-3 with a new alignment which replaces 3,100 feet of the
original Line G, and the outlet of Line E into the San Jacinto Reservoir. (Ibid.) Line G-1
would be realigned, Line C to the east of Hewitt Street would be realigned to extend
Line D-2 south to Washington Avenue, N Line E2A, N Line E-3A, three laterals along
Line E (Kirby Lateral, Lyon Avenue Lateral, and 7th Street Lateral) and Milwaukee SD
would be added. All other previously adopted alignments would remain unchanged.
(Ibid.)
The Revise Existing MDPs Alternative would revise the HW Hemet MDP as
follows: N Line D would be upsized and become an underground facility. (Ibid.) The Line
D Basin will become the downstream terminus of N Line C. (Ibid.) The portion of the
previously adopted NW Hemet MDP Line D, north of Cottonwood (shown in the SJV-
MDP as Line V) would be proposed as an unlined open channel. (Ibid.) All other
previously adopted alignments would remain unchanged under the Revise Existing
MDPs Alternative, no master plan for drainage would be prepared for those areas
outside of the SJMDP and NW Hemet MDP and the following facilities would not be
constructed: Lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6; Lateral 4-A; the North Basin; Casa Loma Basin;
Line X, Y, Y-1, W, and Z; Laterals D-1, X-1; and Laterals Y-1 to Y-13. (Ibid.)
24438.40000•.7623782.3 84
Impacts:
Aesthetics
Same as the Project: The proposed revisions to the Existing MDPs do not
include facilities within one —quarter mile of State Designated Scenic Highways or State
Eligible Scenic Highways. The facilities in the vicinity of a County Eligible Scenic
Highway (Ramona Expressway) would be visible for only a few seconds. Impacts would
be less than significant. (DEIR at 5.0-36.)
Agricultural Resources
Better than the Project but still Significant and Unavoidable: No direct
impacts as the No Project Alternative does not include basins. Indirect impacts would
occur over a smaller area, since the No Project Alternative does not propose drainage
infrastructure for areas outside of the SJMDP or NW Hemet MDP. (ibid.)
Air Quality
Same as Project: Construction of multiple facilities at any given time will likely
still occur. (DEIR at 5.0-37.) Therefore, short-term construction impacts contributing to
exceeding air quality thresholds for particulate matter will result, resulting in significant
and unavoidable short-term impacts. Long-term impacts to air quality will be less than
significant.
Biological Resources
Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species
Slightly Better than the Project: The Revise Existing MDPs Alternative
contains less area with the potential to support special status species. (ibid.) Impacts
would be less than significant with mitigation.
Riparian Habitat
Slightly Better than the Project: Although less riparian habitat is present within
the boundaries of the SJMDP and NW Hemet MDP. The Revise Existing MDPs
Alternative must comply with the provisions of the MSHCP. (Ibid.) If riparian areas
cannot be avoided, then approval of a DBESP, with mitigation, would be required.
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Federally Protected Wetlands
24438.40000 7623782.3 85
Slightly Better than the Project: Less potentially jurisdictional areas are
present within the boundaries of the SJMDP and NW Hemet MDP. Any facilities
constructed within jurisdictional areas must comply with the provisions of the MSHCP
and secure appropriate regulatory permits. (ibid.) Impacts would be less than significant
with mitigation.
Conflict with an HCP
Slightly Better than the Project: The Revise Existing MDPs Alternative
contains less area that the MSHCP identifies as requiring facility-specific focused plant
surveys. (DEIR at 5.0-38.) If target species are present, then avoidance is required. If
species cannot be avoided, then approval of a DBESP, with mitigation, would be
required. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. (Ibid.)
Conflict with Local Policies/Ordinances
Same as the Project: The Revise Existing MDP Alternative is required to comply
with the provisions of the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Impacts would be less than significant.
Cultural Resources
Same as the Project: No change in the significance determination from the
proposed Project would occur. Mitigation measures are the same as for the Project.
(Ibid.) Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Same as the Project: No change in the significance determination from the
proposed Project. Mitigation measures are the same as for the Project. (ibid.) As part of
final design, the design engineer shall check proposed sites for listing on the most
recent Hazardous Waste and Substances List and shall avoid the site or mitigate
accordingly if listed. Soil testing/sampling is required prior to disposing of exported soils
or using imported soils. (ibid.) Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Runoff Durinq Construction
Same as the Project: SWPPPs, identifying BMPs to control erosion during
construction would be required in accordance with the General Construction Permit.
Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR at 5.0-39.)
Post-Protect Runoff
24438.40000 7623782.3 86
Worse than the Project: Groundwater recharge will occur with the basins
proposed; however, runoff from the Project area outside of the Existing MDPs will sheet
flow and agricultural wastes could enter downstream receiving waters. (Ibid.) Impacts
would be potentially significant, requiring mitigation.
Discharge of Pollutants
Same as the Project: Facilities would either mimic natural drainage, or would
require WQMPs that incorporate BMPs to reduce pollutant loads and achieve post-
development flow rates as close to the pre-development condition as possible. Impacts
would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Drainage
Same as the Project: Facilities would alter local drainage patterns within the
project boundary by redirecting sheet flows from streets and agricultural ditches to
basins, channels, and storm drains. No change in the significance determination from
the proposed Project would occur. (Ibid.) Impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
100-Year Flood Hazard Area
Better than the Project: The Existing MDPs proposed fewer facilities within 100-
year flood hazard areas. (DEIR at 5.0-40.) Impacts would be less than significant.
Population and Housing
Better than the Project but still Significant and Unavoidable: Indirect impacts
would occur over a smaller area, since the No Project Alternative does not propose
drainage infrastructure for areas outside of the SJMDP or NW Hemet MDP, and revising
the existing MDPs would not identify facilities to contain the 100-year frequency flood
flows for the entire project boundary. (Ibid.)
Objectives and Feasibility: The Revise Existing MDPs Alternative does not meet
the objective of a single comprehensive MDP. (DEIR at 5.0-40.) Revising the Existing
MDPs will update and revise drainage facilities only within the boundaries of the SJMDP
and NW Hemet MDP leaving much of the North and West Areas without a master plan
for drainage facilities (Objective 1). (Ibid.) Revising the Existing MDPs will not identify
facilities to contain the 100- year frequency flood flows for the entire Project boundary.
(DEIR at 5.0-41.) Facilities will also be identified only within the boundaries of the
SJMDP and NW Hemet MDP leaving much of the North and West Areas without a
master plan for drainage facilities (Objective 2). (Ibid.) In the absence of a master plan,
drainage facilities to serve the areas outside of the Existing MDPs will be planned on an
ad hoc and piece meal basis by San Jacinto, Hemet, Riverside County, and RCFCWCD
as part of the approval process for private development projects (Objective 3). (Ibid.)
Thus, this Alternative would also not ensure that facility alignments are reserved for
future construction of identified drainage facilities (Objective 4). (Ibid.) However, the NW
24438.40000'7623782.3 87
Hemet MDPs could be revised to identify alignments that do not traverse the EMWD
wastewater plant (Objective 5). (DEIR at 5.0-42.) Also, the Existing MDPs could be
revised to identify facilities and facility alignments that minimize the amount of
necessary ROW in potentially sensitive areas (Objective 6). (ibid.) Additionally, although
the drainage facilities for those portions of the North and West Areas outside of the
boundaries of the Existing MDPs will be planned on a piece meal basis, the facilities
could be sized and located to minimize the amount of ROW required in potentially
sensitive areas. (Ibid.) The Existing MDPs could also be revised at the same time such
that the most economical combination of facilities is included in the SJMDP and NW
Hemet MDP (Objective 7). (Ibid.) Since this alternative does not provide for a master
plan of drainage facilities for much of the North and West Areas, drainage facilities on
these areas will be planned by various public and private parties on a piece meal basis
as development takes place in those areas, which provides few, if any, opportunities for
identification of the most economical combination of facilities. (Ibid.) The Existing MDPs
could be revised such that the facilities identified therein will accommodate phased
development; however, no alignments will be identified for much of the North and West
Areas since drainage facilities will be planned on a piece meal basis by San Jacinto,
Hemet, Riverside County, and RCFCWCD as part of the approval process for private
development projects (Objectives 8 and 9). (Ibid.) Therefore, this alternative fails to
meet most of the Project objectives and result in additional impacts over the Project as
proposed, and also fails to avoid the significant impacts.
Finding: The City Council (1) rejects this alternative on the basis that it fails to
meet most of the basic Project objectives, (2) that it would not avoid any of the
significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project; and (3) finds that either of
these grounds provide sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative. Of the
alternatives considered in depth in the DEIR, the City Council finds the Revise Existing
MDPs Alternative to be the environmentally superior alternative; however, as stated
above and in DEIR p. 5.0-43, it does not meet the Project objectives to the full extent
that the Project does.
SECTION 9: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against any
unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Project.
Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, if the benefits of the proposed Project outweigh
the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered
"acceptable."
24438.40000 7623782.3 88
The City Council hereby declares that the EIR has identified and discussed
significant effects which may occur as a result of the proposed Project. With the
implementation of the Mitigation Measures discussed in the EIR and adopted by this
Resolution, these effects can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except for
the unavoidable significant impacts discussed in Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this
Resolution.
The City Council hereby declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith
effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the
Project.
The City Council hereby declares that to the extent any Mitigation Measures
recommended in the EIR would not be incorporated, such Mitigation Measures are
infeasible because they would impose restrictions on the Project that would prohibit the
realization of specific economic, social and other benefits that this City Council finds
outweigh the unmitigated impacts.
The City Council further finds that except for the Project, all other alternatives set
forth in the EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of Project
objectives and/or specific economic, social and other benefits that this City Council finds
outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives; and/or the alternative would
increase the number or magnitude of other significant impacts, making the alternatives
inferior to the proposed Project.
The City Council hereby declares that, having reduced the adverse significant
environmental effect of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the Mitigation
Measures contained in this Resolution, having considered the entire administrative
record on the Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its
unavoidable adverse impact after mitigation, the City Council has determined that each
of the following social, economic and environmental benefits of the Project separately
and individually outweigh all of the potential unavoidable adverse impact and render
those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable:
• The proposed Project will provide a single comprehensive MDP for the north and
west areas and provide updates and revisions to the SJMDP and NW Hemet
MDP. (DEIR at ES-12.)
• The proposed Project will provide some groundwater recharge through the
basins. (DEIR at 5.0-43.)
• The proposed Project will channelize street flows across agricultural lands in
areas that are not currently within an existing MDP. (Ibid.)
• The proposed Project will minimize the amount of agricultural waste that could
enter the San Jacinto River. (Ibid.)
• The proposed Project will alleviate the primary sources of flooding within the
SJV-MDP area. (DEIR at 5.0-41.)
• The proposed Project will protect both existing and future development by
guiding the location and size of new drainage facilities. (Ibid.)
24438.40000 7623782.3 89
• The proposed Project will ensure that facility alignments are reserved for future
construction of drainage facilities built to accommodate development within San
Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside County. (ibid.)
• The proposed Project will account for and accommodate phased development
within San Jacinto, Hemet, and Riverside County. (DEIR at 5.0-43..)
• The proposed Project will create a funding mechanism (ADP) to help finance the
ongoing development of the SJV-MDP as necessary to accommodate phased
development. (Ibid.)
• The proposed Project will offer conceptual design and locations for drainage
facilities to offer solutions to drainage problems in each specific geographical
area of the Project. (DEIR at ES-7.)
• The proposed Project will guide orderly development in the SJV-MDP area,
including avoidance of ROW's. (DEIR at ES-5, 12.)
The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the
public through the approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified
significant adverse environmental impact of the Project that cannot be mitigated. The
City Council finds that each of the Project benefits separately and individually outweighs
all of the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore
finds those impacts to be acceptable.
SECTION 10: CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR
The City Council finds that it has been presented with the Draft EIR, as revised
by the Final EIR's errata section, together with the other sections of the Final EIR
("EIR"), which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an
accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with
CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment
and analysis of the City Council.
The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts as defined
by the State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 have been received by the City Council
after circulation of the EIR which would require recirculation.
Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the
record of proceedings, including but not limited to the following findings and conclusion:
A. Findings
The following significant environmental impacts (both project-specific and
cumulative) have been indentified in the EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in
Section 4 and Section 5 of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of less than
significant: Agricultural Resources (Project and cumulative impacts), Air Quality (Short-
term Project impacts), and Population and Housing (Project and cumulative growth-
inducement impacts). The EIR also identified, as described in Sections 6 and 7 of this
Resolution, that the Project would result in significant irreversible environmental
24438.40000':7623782.3 90
changes and have a significant and unavoidable impact with regard to growth
inducement.
B. Conclusions
All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the Project have
been identified in the EIR and, with implementation of the Mitigation Measures
identified, will be mitigated to a less than significant level, except for the impacts listed in
subsection A above.
Other reasonable alternatives to the Project which could feasibly achieve the
basic objectives of the Project have been considered and rejected in favor of the
Project.
Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived
from the development of the Project override the significant and unavoidable impact of
the Project identified in subsection A.
SECTION 11: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as
Exhibit A. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the
Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set for
herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program shall control.
SECTION 12: RESOLUTION REGARDING CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which
this Resolution has been based are located at the Department of Community
Development, 595 S. San Jacinto Ave,. San Jacinto, CA 92583. The custodian for these
records is Asher Hartel, Planning Director. This information is provided in compliance
with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
SECTION 13: RESOLUTION REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of Riverside and the
State Clearinghouse within 5 (five) working days of final Project approval.
Section 14: EFFECTIVE DATE
This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption.
24438A0000'7623782.3 91
PASSED APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City Council
on the 14th Day of January, 2013 by the following vote:
Ayes: Kotyuk, Ledezma, Miller, Ruiz, Bartel
Nays: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
City of San Jacinto
Mark Bartel, Mayor
ATTEST:
Richard Miller, City Clerk
24438 40000 7623782 3 92