Attachment 3c - Exhibits and Photos — Riverside City Council, June 21, 2022

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 9 - Airport Land Use Commission Determination PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 9 - Airport Land Use Commission Determination PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 9 - Airport Land Use Commission Determination PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 9 - Airport Land Use Commission Determination Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration 1
PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

WARD: 2

1. Case Numbers: PR-2021-001023 (GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

2. Project Title: Quick Quack Car Wash

3. Lead Agency: City of Riverside
Community & Economic Development Department
Planning Division
3900 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92522

4. Contact Person: Candice Assadzadeh, Senior Planner Phone Number: (951) 826-5667

5. Project Location: The proposed Project site is located at 360 Alessandro Boulevard and is situated at the northwest corner of Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway . (Refer to Figure 1 - Regional Map, Figure 2 - Project Site) The Project site is 0.99 acre (gross acre). Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 272-060-004.

6. Project Applicant/Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Ken Assi
KA Enterprises
5820 Oberlin Drive, Suite 201
San Diego, CA 92121
(619) 820-6180

7. General Plan Designation: O – Office

8. Zoning: O – Office Zone

9. Description of Project:

The proposed Project includes the construction and operation of a car wash that totals approximately 3,648 square feet (SF) with 17 associated vacuum stations, parking, landscaping, and lighting improvements. (see Figure 3 - Site Plan) The facility would consist of a single building that would house the car wash tunnel, office, employee lounge and restrooms, equipment housing, and mat erials storage. The car wash tunnel will be 108- feet long, with tunnel exit and entrance dimensions of 10 feet wide by 10 feet tall. Additional facilities would include pay and vacuum station canopies, centralized vacuum equipment, employee parking spaces, and a trash/recycling enclosure. The centralized vacuum equipment would also be housed within an enclosure and screened. Access to the site would be provided by two driveways one on Alessandro Boulevard and one on Mission Grove Parkway. Ad ditional site

COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration 2
PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)
improvements would include underground utilities, reclaimed water storage tanks (underground), pedestrian walkways, site lighting, and landscaping.

The proposed hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week with extended hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. from April through September. The facility would be expected to serve approximately 8,000 cars in a typical month. The majority of water used in car washing is reclaimed and is stored in on-site storage tanks and recycled for subsequent washes. Water consumed and discharged to the City’s wastewater transmission system (consumptive water use) would average 12 to 15 gallons per vehicle. Consumptive water use would range from 3,900 gallons per day for less busy weekdays up to 4,500 gallons per day on Fridays and Saturdays, when the facility would be busier.

The proposed Project site currently has two buildings that are currently vacant. One building totals approximately 3,287 SF and the other building is approximately 2,650 S F. The buildings were previously used by AT&T as one of its service facility offices. Implementation of the proposed Project would require the buildings to be demolished and the site be re-graded to provide a new building pad and internal parking and drive aisles for the car wash facility.

The demolition activities are expected to result in approximately 696 tons of debris, which will be hauled off -site and would generate 69 two-way haul trips to a recycling facility located approximately 10 miles from the Project site. Demolition is anticipated to take approximately three weeks . Construction of the new facility, including site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings (painting, etc.), is anticipated to take approximately 10 months. The Project is anticipated to open/ be operational in late 2022.

The following entitlements are required for the proposed Project:
• General Plan Amendment (GPA) – to change the land use designation from O – Office to C – Commercial; • Zoning Code Map Amendment (RZ) – to change the zone from O – Office Zone to CG – Commercial General Zone;
• Conditional Use Permit (CUP) – to permit a vehicle wash facility; • Design Review (DR) – for the proposed site design and building elevations and • Variance (VR) – to allow for walls greater than 6 feet in height along the rear and west property lines.

10. Surrounding land uses and setting:

The Project site is located in the Mission Grove neighborhood of Riverside. North and west of the Project site is multi-family residential, the Mission Villas; east (across Mission Grove Parkway) is an office building housing the Riverside County Emergency Operations Center and further east the Metropolitan Water District’s Henry Mills Water Treatment Plan t; and south (across Alessandro Boulevard) are commercial uses, in the Mission Grove Shopping Center. Table 1: Project Site and Surrounding Land Use and Zoning lists the surrounding land uses and zoning.

Table 1: Project Site and Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Existing Land Use General Plan Designation Zoning
Designation
Project
Site
Office (vacant) O - Office O – Office Zone
North
Multi-Family
Residential (Mission
Villas)
HDR – High Density
Residential
R-3-3000-SP –
Multiple Family
Residential and
Specific Plan
(Mission Grove)
Overlay Zones
PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration 3
PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)
East
(across
Mission
Grove
Parkway)
Public Facilities
(Riverside County
Emergency Operations
Center and Henry Mills
Water Treatment Plant)
PF – Public Facilities/Institution PF – Public
Facilities Zone
South
(across
Alessandro
Boulevard)
Commercial (Mission
Grove Shopping Center)
C – Commercial

CR-SP –
Commercial Retail
and Specific Plan
(Mission Grove)
Overlay Zones

West
Multi-Family
Residential (Mission
Villas)
HDR – High Density
Residential
R-3-3000-SP –
Multiple Family
Residential and
Specific Plan
(Mission Grove)
Overlay Zones

11. Other public agencies whose approval is r equired (e.g., permits, financial approval, or participation agreement.): None.

12. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significant impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?

The City of Riverside sent out AB 52 consultation notices to tribes to initiate consultation on June 29, 2021.

The following California Native American tribes requested consultation with the City of Riverside pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.3.1:
a. Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians

SB 18 consultation notices were also sent out on July 22, 2021, there were no tribes that requested consultation in accordance with the SB 18 guidelines.

13. Other Environmental Reviews Incorporated by Reference in this Review:

a. City of Riverside, General Plan 2025 (GP 2025)
b. City of Riverside, GP 2025 Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) c. Title 17, Grading Code
d. Title 19, Zoning Code
e. Title 20, Cultural Resources

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration 4
PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

14. Acronyms

ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
APN Accessor Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resource Board
CCM Circulation and Community Mobility Element
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CLUP March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port Comprehensive Land Use Plan DDC Deep Dynamic Compaction
EIC Eastern Information Center
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FPEIR Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report
GHG Greenhouse gasses
GIS Geographic Information System
HCP Habitat Conservation Rat
HDR High Density Residential
JLUS Joint Land Use Study
LDAs Light duty autos
LID Low Impact Development
LOS Level of service
LU Land use
MARB/MIP March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM Mitigation Measure
MRZ Mineral Resource Zones
MSHCP Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Plan msl mean seal level
N Noise
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
OS Open Space
PEIR Program EIR
PR Park and Recreation Element
PRC Public Resource Code
PS Public Safety
RIC Rapid Impact Compaction
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RUSD Riverside Unified School District
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SKR Stephen Kangaroo Rat
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration 5
PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)
UCR/UNET UC Riverside Police Officer Association and University Neighborhood Enhancement Team USGS United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tanks
VHFSZ Very High Fire Safety Zone
VMT Vehicles Miles Traveled
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan

15. Appendix List
a. Appendix A – Quick Quack Car Wash Air Quality Impact Analysis by Urban Crossroads, Inc. November 4, 2021
b. Appendix B – Nesting Bird Assessment Report by Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc. July 2021 c. Appendix C – Quick Quack Car Wash Energy Analysis Technical Report by Urban Crossroads, Inc.

November 4, 2021
d. Appendix D – Geotechnical Engineering Investigation by Krazan & Associates, Inc. December 17, 2020 e. Appendix E – Quick Quack Car Wash Greenhouse Gas Analysis by Urban Crossroads, Inc. November 4, 2021
f. Appendix F – Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan by Omega Engineering Consultants, Inc.

February 11, 2021
g. Appendix G – Quick Quack Car Wash Noise Impact Study by MD Acoustics, LLC January 24, 2022. h. Appendix H – Traffic Analysis by Urban Crossroads, Inc. August 3, 2021

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration 6
PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)
PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 PR-2021-001023 (GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration 8
PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration 9
PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

16. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture & Forest Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources

Cultural Resources

Energy

Geology/Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Hazards & Hazardous Materials

Hydrology/Water Quality

Land Use/Planning

Mineral Resources

Noise

Population/Housing

Public Services

Recreation

Transportation

Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems

Wildfire

Mandatory Findings of
Significance

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)

On the basis of this initial evaluation which reflects the independent judgment of the City of Riverside, it is recommended that:

The City of Riverside finds that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

The City of Riverside finds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

The City of Riverside finds that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

The City of Riverside finds that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

The City of Riverside finds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because al l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

Printed Name & Title For City of Riverside
PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 10 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measure which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a re ference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY

COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY

COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION

COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 11 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8) The explanation of each issue should identify:

a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 12 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. AESTHETICS.

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

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR – Section 5.1 Aesthetics, Google Maps)

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is developed and in a highly urbanized area. The site is bordered by Alessandro Boulevard to the south, Mission Grove Parkway to the east , and residential uses to the north and west. Per Section 5.1 Aesthetics of the City of Riverside General Plan 2025 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report ( GP 2025 FPEIR), the hills and ridgelines that surround the City provide scenic vistas , with the most notable scenic vistas including the La Sierra/Norco Hills, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park, and Box Springs Mountain Regional Park (Section

5.1 Aesthetics, p. 5.1-2). The proposed Project site is located approximately one (1) mile west (via the Barton Street trailhead entrance) of the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park; however, the proposed Project site does not offer views of this scenic vista due to its proximate location to the Park and due to surrounding development (i.e., buildings, ornamental trees, etc.) .

Further, the proposed Project site itself does not constitute a scenic vista as it does not offer a viewpoint that provides expansive views of highly valued landscape. Therefore, as the proposed Project site does not obscure views of nearby scenic vistas, nor is the site itself a scenic vista, implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Impacts would be less than significant directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.

b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

1b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 , and General Plan 2025 FPEIR – Section 5.1 Aesthetics ; General Plan 2025 Circulation and Community Mobility Element, Figure CCM-4 – Master Plan of Roadways)

Less than Significant Impact. Per Section 5.1 Aesthetics of the GP 2025 FPEIR, no officially designated State scenic highways or any eligible scenic highways traverse the City of its Sphere of Influence (Section 5.1 – Aesthetics p. 5.1-4). The nearest State eligible scenic highway is Interstate 15 (I -15), which is located approximately 17 miles west of the proposed Project site. There are, however, several scenic and special boulevards within the City. Alessandro Boulevard, which borders the proposed Project site to the south, is designated as a scenic boulevard. Mission Grove Parkway, which borders the site to the east, is not designated as a scenic and special boulevard, at the Project site. (GP 2025 Circulation and Community Mobility Element, Figure CCM-4 – Master Plan of Roadways) Because Alessandro Boulevard is designated as a Scenic Boulevard, it requires the development standard of a minimum landscape setback of 10 feet . As the car wash tunnel faces Alessandro Boulevard, specific design elements were incorporated into the Project plans in order to screen views of the tunnel from views from Alessandro Boulevard (for people within vehicles, on bicycles, or walking on the sidewalk) and include:
• A low (3-foot) screen/pony wall with ledger-stone on both sides to with type, color, and size to match building; and • A screening structure that extends 6 feet above the screen/pony wall with evergreen vines.

The vacuum equipment and trash receptacles will also be screened from views by be ing located within structural enclosures with landscape screening around the enclosures. The landscaping along Mission Grove Parkway includes plant material with maturity height of at least 3 -4 feet such that it will screen views of the vehicles using the vacuum stations. Therefore, with compliance with the 10 foot landscape setback development standard and with implementati on of additional design features to screen views from Alessandro Boulevard into the car wash tunnel and of the Project’s vacuum equipment and trash enclosures, the proposed Project would not result in substantial damage to this Scenic Boulevard.

Additionally, as the Project site is currently developed and does not contain any historic buildings, nor is the site located adjacent to any historic buildings , it would not result in impacts to historic buildings . Further, the proposed Project sit e is paved and does not contain any rock outcroppings , and while there is a small number of trees in and around the site, these PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 13 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

trees are not native vegetation but were part of landscaping associated with the prior use . Therefore, the proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, or historic resources within a state scenic highway. Potential impacts would be less than significant directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.

c. In non-urbanized areas, s ubstantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly-accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

1c. Response : (Source: General Plan 2025, General Plan 2025 FPEIR, Zoning Code, Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines)

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is developed and is in an urbanized area.

According to the GP 2025 Open Space and Conservation Element, scenic resources enhance the visual character of Riverside and provide distinguishing characteristics. Furthermore, the hillsides and ridgelines above Riverside offer scenic benefits to the community . The Open Space and Conservation Element elaborates that the peaks of Box Sp rings Mountain, Mt.

Rubidoux, Arlington Mountain, Alessandro Heights and the La Sierra/Norco Hills provide scenic viewpoints of the City and the region. The closest applicable scenic resource would b e the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park which is approximately one (1) mile west of the proposed Project area (via the Barton Street trailhead entrance) . The proposed Project would not conflict with the GP 2025 Open Space and Conservation Element because the proposed Project would not have any impacts on the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park or other scenic resources identified in the GP 2025.

Pursuant to Title 19 - Zoning of the Riverside Municipal Code, the proposed Project would meet all development standards, with the exception of walls greater than 6 feet in height along the rear and west property lines. The applicant is requesting a variance, in order to allow the increased wall height of 8 feet, for the Project to comply with Title 7 – Noise Control of the Riverside Municipal Code.

The City of Riverside adopted the Riverside Citywide Design Guidelines and Sign Guidelines in 2007. Chapter IV, Section A of the document provides residential design guidelines for commercial and mixed -use design. As part of the City’s entitlement process, the Project applicant is required to implement design features to comply with City requirements in providing development of scenic quality. The project has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding area and the Project does not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations regarding scenic quality. Therefore, the proposed Project would not degrade the existing visual character of the area. Therefore, p otential impacts would be less than significant directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

1d. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025, Riverside Municipal Code Chapter 19.556 – Outdoor Lighting, Riverside Municipal Code Section 19.590.070 – Light and Glare, Riverside Municipal Code Chapter 19.710 – Design Review, Photometric Site Plan)

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is located in an area with existing outdoor lighting sources along Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway. Currently, sources of nighttime light originate from nearby residential uses, commercial uses, streetlights, and vehicles.

Proposed lighting for the Project includes lighting typical of commercial uses, including lights from inside and outside of the car wash building and entrance lighting in compliance with Chapter 19.556 – Outdoor Lighting and Section 19.590.070 of the Riverside Municipal Code (RMC). Chapter 19.556 of the RMC sets forth standards to ensure that lighting provided for projects is adequat e to light the project for safety while not causing light spillage onto neighboring properties. Section

19.590.070 of the RMC establishes performance standards for light and glare and identifies required lighting for safety purposes at entryways, along walkways, between buildings, and within parking areas, as well as establishes minimum lighting levels and other lighting requirements. The proposed lighting would be directed, oriented, and shielded to prevent light from PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 14 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

shining onto the adjacent properties as required by the RMC. Although the lighting proposed by the proposed Project would increase lighting on the proposed Project site compared to current conditions, the lighting would not result in substantial light or glare compared to surrounding developme nt as shown in the Photometric Site Plan prepared for the Project . Therefore, the proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Potential impacts would be less than significant directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES:

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information complied by the California Depar tment of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?

2a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 – Figure OS-2 – Agricultural Suitability & General Plan 2025 FPEIR)

No Impact. A review of Figure OS -2 – Agricultural Suitability of the General Plan 2025 reveals that the proposed P roject site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and is not adjacent to or in proximity to any land classified as, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Figure OS- 2 was prepared pursuant to the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

Therefore, the proposed Project will have no impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively to agricultural uses.

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

2b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 – Figure OS-3 - Williamson Act Preserves and, General Plan 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.2-2 – Williamson Act Preserves)

No Impact. A review of Figure OS-3 – Williamson Act Preserves of the General Plan 2025 and Figure 5.2 -2 – Williamson Act Preserves of the General Plan 2025 FPEIR reveals that the proposed Project site is not located within an area that is affected by a Williamson Act Preserve or under a Williamson Act Contract. Moreover, the P roject site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not next to land zoned for agricultural use . Therefore, the proposed P roject will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract and will have no impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively to this resource.

c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production ( as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

2c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Open Space and Conservation Element) PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 15 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

No Impact. Forest land, as defined in the Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) is land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. Timberland, as defined in the Public Resources Code section 4526, is land, other than land owned by the federal government, and land designated by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.

The proposed Project site is developed and is bordered by Alessandro Boulevard to the south, Mission Gove Parkway to the east, and residential uses to the north and west. While there are trees within and around the proposed Project site, these trees are ornamental and are too few in number to constitute forest land. The proposed Project site does not contain timberland, is not zoned for timberland production, and is not adjacent to land zoned for timberland. Further, the proposed Project will not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)) . Therefore, no impact would occur from the proposed Project directly, indirectly or cumulatively to forest land or timberland.

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
2d. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Open Space and Conservation Element)

No Impact. As outlined above in 2c, the proposed P roject site is developed and is bordered by paved roads and residential uses that do not contain forest land. Trees within and around the site are ornamental and are too few in number to constitute forest land. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use. No impact will occur from this proposed Project directly, indirectly or cumulatively on forest land.

e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

2e. Response: (Source: General Plan – Figure OS-2 – Agricultural Suitability, Figure OS-3 – Williamson Act Preserves, General Plan 2025 FPEIR)

No Impact. The proposed Project site is not designated as, or near any land classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance and does not support agricultural resources or operations. The proposed P roject will not result in the conversion of designated farmland to non-agricultural uses. In addition, there are no agricultural resources or operations, including farmlands within proximity of the proposed Project site. Further, as outlined above in 2c and 2d, the proposed Project site is developed and is bordered by paved roads and residential uses that do not contain forest land. Trees within and around the site are ornamental and are too few in number to constitute forest land. The proposed Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur from this proposed Project directly, indirectly or cumulatively on Farmland or forest land.

3. AIR QUALITY.

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 16 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

3a. Response: (Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), Quick Quack Car Wash Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. dated August 27, 2021, (Appendix A))

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project area is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) which is regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (S CAQMD). The SCAB includes all of Orange County and the non- desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) , which has a 20-year horizon for the SCAB. In March 2017, the SCAQMD released the Final 2016 AQMP which evaluates current strategies and control measures to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) . It also investigates new and innovative approaches to achieve its goals. The Final 2016 AQMP builds upon the approaches taken in the 2012 AQMP for the Basin for the attainment of the federal ozone air quality standard. The Basin is currently a federal and state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM 2.5), and ozone (O3).

The Final 2016 AQMP proposes attainment demonstration of the federal PM 2.5 standards through a more focused control of sulfur oxides (SOx), directly emitted PM2.5, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Consistency with the AQMP for the Basin means that a project would be consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions in the respective plan to achieve the federal and state air quality standards. For a project to be consistent with the AQMD adopted by the SCAQMD, the pollutants emitted from the project should not exceed the SCAQMD daily threshold or cause a significant impact on air quality, or the project must already have been included in the AQMP projections. However, if feasible mitigation measures are implemented and shown to reduce the impact level from significant to less than significant, then a project may be deemed consistent with the AQMP. The AQMP uses the assumptions and projections of local planning agencies to determine control strategies for regional compliance status. Since the AQMP is based on the local General Plan, projects that are deemed consistent with the General Plan are found to be consistent with the AQMP .

The proposed Project will not exceed the assumptions in the 2016 AQMP based on the years of Project build-out phase. The 2016 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local ge neral plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP.

Development consistent with the growth projections in the City of Riverside General Plan is consistent with the AQMP.

Per the City of Riverside’s General Plan, the Project site is designated as office use. The proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the land use designation and zoning from office to commercial . Although the proposed Project is inconsistent with the proposed site’s land use designation, the Project would not exceed any applicable regional or local thresholds (as outlined in more detail in the response to 3b below) and would not result in or cause NAAQS or California Ambient Air Quality Standards ( CAAQS) violations. As such, the Project is therefore considered to be consistent with the AQMP and would result in less than significant impacts.

b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

3b. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Table 5.3 -B South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Regional Significance Thresholds, South Coast Air Quality Management District’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan , and Quick Quack Car Wash Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. dated August 27, 2021, (Appendix A))

Less than Significant Impact. A Project specific Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) was conducted and the results from the AQIA are the basis of comparison with the significance criteria set forth in this Initial Study. The proposed Project consists of construction and operation of an automated tunnel car wash. Prior to car wash construction the existing vacant buildings will be demolished and the site re-graded. The demolition activities would require approximately 696 tons of debris that will be hauled off-site and would generate 69 two-way haul trips to a recycling facility located approximately 10 miles from the Project site.

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 17 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

Construction Analysis
Construction activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of VOCs, NOx, SOx, carbon monoxide ( CO), PM10, and PM2.5. Construction related emissions are expected from the following construction activities:
• Demolition
• Site preparation
• Grading
• Building construction
• Paving
• Architectural coating

Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) represent the maximum emissions from a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable NAAQS and CAAQS at the nearest residence or sensitive receptor. Receptor locations are off -site locations where individuals may be exposed to emissions from Proje ct activities.

Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly and individuals with pre -existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. Structures that house these persons or places where they gather are defined as “sensitive receptors”.

These structures typically include uses such as residences, hotels, and hospitals where an individual can remain for 24 hours.

Consistent with the LST Methodology, the nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site will be used to determine construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM 10 and PM2.5, since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time.

Table 2 below (Table 3-8 from the AQIA, Appendix A) identifies the localized impacts from the nearest receptor location for the Project. Emissions with peak demolition, site preparation, and grading activities are considered for purposes of LSTs since these phases represents the maximum localized emissions that would occur. Any other construction phases of development that overlap would result in lesser emissions and thus lesser impacts than w hat is d isclosed here. Local construction emissions would not exceed the relevant SCAQMD emissions LSTs of any criteria pollutant and no mitigation is needed.

Table 2: Localized Construction-Source Emissions
On-Site Emissions
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition
Maximum Daily Emissions 20.07 10.02 1.16 0.78
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 144 743 6 4
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Site Preparation
Maximum Daily Emissions 15.75 11.93 1.01 0.60
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 118 602 4 3
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Grading
Maximum Daily Emissions 32.27 17.69 2.20 1.18
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 187 999 8 5
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO

Operations Analysis
The total development of the Proposed project is an automatic car wash with one car wash tunnel. According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project if the project includes stationary sources PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 18 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queu ing and idling at the site (e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). The proposed Project does not include such uses, and therefore , due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is needed.

CO “Hot Spot” Analysis
The Project would not result in potentially adverse CO concentrations or “hot spots.” Additional detailed modeling of Project- specific CO “hot spots” is not required to reach this assumption. An adverse CO concentration or “hot spot” would occur if the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm is exceeded. CO hotspots are primarily caused by vehicular emissions idling at clogged intersections. As a response to CO hotspots, the vehicle emissions standards have become stricter in the past 20 years. The allowable CO emissions standard in California is currently a max of

3.4 grams/mile for most passenger cars. CO concentration in the SCAB is now designated as attainment due to old vehicle turnover, clean fuel introduction, and implementation of efficient emissions control technologies. To establish a more accurate record of baseline CO concentrations affecting the SCAB, a CO “hot spot” analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. This “hot spot” analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards . The Project-related traffic volumes on Mission Grove Parkway and Alessandro Boulevard are less than the traffic volumes identified in the 2003 AQMP and the proposed Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO “hot spot” in the context of the 2003 Los Angeles hot spot study. Similar considerations are also employed by other Air Districts when evaluating potential CO concentration impacts. More specifically, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) conclude d that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour (vph), or 24,000 vph where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix, in order to generate a significant CO impact . The proposed Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO “hot spot” on representative BAAQMD CO threshold considerations either. Therefore, CO “hot spots” are not an environmental impact of concern for the Project. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would therefore be less than significant.

The SCAQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. Projects that exceed the project -specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant . Therefore, this analysis assumes that individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended da ily thresholds for project -specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which SCAB is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual project-related construction and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for project -specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable.

The Project ‐specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that Project construction - source and operational -source air pollutant emissions would not result in exceedances of regional thresholds. Therefore, Project construction-source and operational-source emissions would be considered less than significant on a project-specific and cumulative basis. Thus, impacts are from the Project are less than significant.

c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 19 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

3c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Table 5.3 -B SCAQMD CEQA Regional Significance Thresholds, South Coast Air Quality Management District’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, and Quick Quack Car Wash Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. dated August 27, 2021, (Appendix A))

Less than Significant Impact. As outlined in more detail in Response 3b above, t he LST analysis results indicate that the proposed Project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significant threshold during construction. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations durin g construction. Furthermore, the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during operational activity. Additional project- related traffic would not create or result in a CO “hotspot.” Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations because of Project operations. Thus, potential Project impacts related to substantial pollutant exposure to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

3d. Response: (Source: Proposed Project Description, Quick Quack Car Wash Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. dated August 27, 2021, (Appendix A))

Less than Significant Impact. Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include:
• Agricultural uses (livestock and farming)
• Wastewater treatment plants
• Food processing plants
• Chemical plants
• Composting operations
• Refineries
• Landfills
• Dairies
• Fiberglass molding facilities

The proposed Project site is not a land use that is generally associated with odor complaints and is not anticipated to emit objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project construction activities may result from equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings. Another potential odor source may occur from the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s long-term operation uses. Standard construction regulations would minimize construction odor impacts. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature. Furthermore, construction would cease upon completion of each designated phase and is thus considered less than significant. Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would also require complying with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. In conclusion, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fis h and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?

4a. Response: (Source: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Information Map 1, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)

1 https://wrcrca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a73e69d2a64d41c29ebd3acd67467abd PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 20 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

QuickView 2, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Plann ing and Consultation (IPaC) 3, Quick Quack Car Wash Nesting Bird Assessment Report prepared by Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc. July 2021 (Appendix B))

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Project site is located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP, and the City of Riverside is a permittee of the MSHCP. All proposed Projects planned within the MSHCP’s boundary are required to analyze their consistency with the MSHCP. Consistency standards could include conducting species analyses on designated parcels across the Plan A rea, such as criteria area/narrow endemic plant species, or sensitive animals like burrowing owl. These analyses usually include preparing detailed species habitat assessments. If a proposed Project property is found to be suitable for specified MSHCP species to occur, then the applicable focused surveys are often required. The RCA MSHCP Information Map outlines parcel-by-parcel properties which require habitat assessments and focused surveys when suitable habitat occurs.

According to the RCA MSHCP Information Map, the proposed Project site is located outside of any criteria cells, areas where conservation is described . Furthermore, the proposed Project is not located in the following MSHCP survey areas:
amphibian, owl, criteria area species, mammal, narrow endemic plant, and invertebrate. In conclusion, no MSHCP focused surveys or habitat assessments are required for this Project site.

The CDFW BIOS CNDDB QuickView analysis indicated 74 sensitive species have been observed in the Riverside East USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle where the proposed Project is located. (USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps cover an area of 49-70 square miles) However, no CDFW recorded observations of sensitive species or habitat are present within or close to the proposed Project site.

As the proposed Project site is already developed, any naturally occurring vegetation or habitats that may have occurred there in the past have already been disturbed. Per the Nesting Bird Assessment, the vegetation observed on site , which includes landscaping of the previous development, was disturbed and unmaintained. There is no suitable habitat at the Project site for sensitive plant or wildlife species.

However, the Project site does contain some trees and shrubs that could be utilized by birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) or California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). A nesting bird survey was performed on Wednesday, June 30, 2021, and no nests, potential nesting sites, or indicators of nesting were observed. Although it is a low potential, there is some potential that birds could s tart nests on -site prior to the start of construction. If construction activities are initiated outside of the nesting bird season of February 1 st through August 31st, no mitigation is required. However, if construction were to be initiated during the nest ing bird season, then a pre -construction nesting bird clearance survey (mitigation measure MM BIO-1) would be required to reduce potential impacts to birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code to less than significan t levels.

Mitigation Measures

MM BIO-1: If construction shall occur within the nesting bird breeding season (February 1st through August 31st), prior to on-site vegetation clearance, the Project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey in accordance with the following:
• The survey shall be conducted no more than three days prior to the initiation of clearance/construction work. • If pre-construction surveys indicate that bird nests are not present or are inactive, or if potential nesting vegetation is unoccupied, no further measures is required.
• If active nests of birds that are protected under the MBTA or CFGC are found during the surveys, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest. The size of the buffer shall be determined by the biologist and shall be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, expected types of disturbance, and location in relation to the construction activities. These buffers are typically 300 feet from nests of non- listed species and 500 feet from the nests of raptor and listed species. Any active nests observed shall be mapped on an aerial photograph and with the bird species identification.

2 https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS
3 https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 21 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

• Only construction activities (if any) that have been approved by a Biological Monitor shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. The biologist shall serve as Construction Monitor when construction activities take place near active nest areas to ensure no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. • Results of the pre-construction nesting bird survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the Property Owner/Developer and the City. The monitoring report shall summarize the results of the nest monitoring, describe construction restrictions currently in place, and confirm that construction activities can proceed within the buffer area without jeopardizing the survival of the young birds.

With implementation of mitigation measure MM BIO-1, potential impacts to sensitive species would be less than significant with mitigation.

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?

4b. Response: (Source: CDFW BIOS, MSHCP)

No Impact. Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP requires an assessment of impacts to riparian habitats, riverine areas, and vernal pools. Also, if suitable habitat is present, then focused surveys for sensitive riparian birds and/or fairy shrimp species would also be required. The assessment requirement’s intent is to provide protection for the MSHCP’s covered species as well as existing and future downstream conservation areas. Riverine/riparian areas and vernal pools are defined in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP as follows; Riparian/Riverine Areas are lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source, or areas with freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year. The Project site has been developed and does not support riparian habitat or other sensitive communities. The proposed Project area is not located in or near riparian habitat nor any other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations nor by the California Department of Fish and Game or USFWS. The proposed Project would have no impacts on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally - protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

4c. Response: (Source: City of Riverside GIS/CADME USGS Quad Map Layer, USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Wetlands Mapper4, MSHCP)

No Impact. The Project site has been developed and does not support wetlands. The proposed Project would have no impacts on wetlands, including direct removal, fill, interruption or harming any hydrologic features.

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

4d. Response: (Source: MSHCP, General Plan 2025 –Figure OS-7 – MSHCP Cores and Linkages)

No Impact. Wildlife movement includes seasonal migration along corridors, as well as daily movements for foraging.

Examples of migration corridors may include areas of unobstructed movement for deer, riparian corridors providing cover for migrating birds, routes between breeding waters and upland habitat for amphibians, and between roosting and feeding areas for birds.

4 https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html
PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 22 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

Per the General Plan’s Open Space and Conservation Element, the MSHCP Conservation Area is comprised of a variety of existing and proposed Cores, Extensions of Existing Cores, Linkages, Constrained Linkages and Non-Contiguous Habitat Blocks. The MSHCP identifies cores for habitat conservation and linkages for wildlife movement . The proposed Project is not located within or adjacent to any MSHCP existing cores & linkages, or proposed cores, habitat blocks, or linkages.

As outlined above in response 4a, the proposed Project site is already developed any naturally occurring vegetation or habitats that may have occurred there in the past have already been disturbed. Per the Nesting Bird Assessment, the vegetation observed on site, which includes landscaping of the previous development, was disturbed and unmaintained. There is no suitable habitat at the Project site for sensitive plant or wildlife species. The developed and disturbed condition of the si te does not support any native resident fish or wildlife spec ies. The east side of the Project site is bounded by Mission Grove Parkway, with two vehicle thru lanes in each direction, and bounded to the south by Alessandro Boulevard, with three vehicle thru lanes in each direction. The north and west sides of the Pr oject site have a solid wall between the site and the multi- family residential development. The Project site is surrounded with existing development and heavily traveled roads.

Therefore, the Project site is not a wildlife corridor or a part of a larger wildlife corridor. The proposed Project would have no impacts on the movement of migratory fish or wildlife species, on an established wildlife corridor, or on a native wildlife nursery site.

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

4e. Response: ( Source: MSHCP, Title 16 Section 16.72.040 – Establishing the Western Riverside County MSHCP Mitigation Fee, Title 16 Section 16.40.040 – Establishing a Threatened and Endangered Species Fees, City of Riverside Urban Forest Tree Policy Manual)

Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed Project would require the removal of ornamental trees on site; however, the Project would not be subject to the Riverside Urban Tree Policy Manual pertaining to tree removal as none of the ornamental trees is located within a City-owned right-of-way. Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact directly, indirectly, or cumulatively related to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?

4f. Response: (Source: MSHCP Title 16 Section 16.72.040 – Establishing the Western Riverside County MSHCP Mitigation Fee)

Less than Significant Impact. As outlined in responses 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d above, the proposed Project site is located outside of all criteria cells, areas where conservation is described for in the MSHCP. Furthermore, the proposed Project is not located in the following MSHCP survey areas: amphibian, owl, criteria area species, mamma l, narrow endemic plant, and invertebrate. In conclusion, no MSHCP focused surveys or habitat assessments are required for this Project site. The Project site does not support any riparian, riverine, or wetland resources that are protected under Section 6. 1.2 of the MSHCP.

Therefore, the Project will not conflict with the conservation goals of the MSHCP. The Project is required to comply with Riverside Municipal Code Section 16.72.040 establishing the MSHCP mitigation fee, by paying the applicable local development mitigation fee. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the MSHCP and would have less than significant impacts.

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 23 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines?

5a. Response: (Source: GP 2025 Historic Preservation Element)

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is currently developed within an urbanized area. Due to the prior grading activities on site and surface disturbance s during past development of the site , no historic resources are anticipated to occur at the site and the likelihood of encountering historical resources during the proposed re-grading of the Project site is low. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations protecting historical resources and would be conditioned to cease excavation or construction activities if historical resources are identified during development of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?

5b. Response: (Source: GP 2025 EIR Figure 5.5-1 - Archaeological Sensitivity and Figure 5.5-2 - Prehistoric Cultural Resources Sensitivity)

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation . Per GP 2025 Figures 5.5- 1 – Archaeological Sensitivity and 5.5 -2 – Prehistoric Cultural Resources Sensitivity, the proposed Project site is located in an area of high archaeological sensitivity as well as high prehistoric cultural resources sensitivity. Ho wever, as discussed, the proposed Project site is currently developed within an urbanized area. Due to the prior grading activities on site and surface disturbance s during past development of the site , no archaeological resources are anticipated to occur at the site and the likelihood of encountering archaeological resources during the proposed re -grading of the Project site is low. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations protecting archaeological and cultural resources. Implementation of mitigation measure MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4 would further ensure the proposed Project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1: Prior to grading permit issuance, if there are any changes to project site design and/or proposed grades, the Applicant and the City shall contact consulting tribes to provide an electronic copy of the revised plans for review. Additional consultation shall occur between the City, developer/applicant, and consulting tribes to discuss any proposed changes and review any new impacts and/or potential avoidance/preservation of the cultural resources on the project site. The City and the developer/applicant shall make all attempts to avoid and/or preserve in pla ce as many cultural and paleontological resources as possible that are located on the project site if the site design and/or proposed grades should be revised. In the event of inadvertent discoveries of archaeological resources, work shall temporarily halt until agreements are executed with consulting tribe, to provide tribal monitoring for ground disturbing activities.

MM CUL-2: Archaeological and Paleontological Monitoring: At least 30 days prior to application for a grading permit and before any grading, excavation and/or ground disturbing activities take place, the developer/applicant shall retain a Secretary of Interior Standards qualified archaeological monitor to monitor all ground- disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources.

Environmental Initial Study 24 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

duties, scope of work, and Native American Tribal Monitors’ authority to stop and redirect grading activities in coordination with all project archaeologists;
c. The protocols and stipulations that the Applicant, tribes, and project archaeologist/paleontologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resource s discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits, or nonrenewable paleontological resources that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation; d. Treatment and final disposition of any cultural and paleontological resources, sacred sites, and human remains if discovered on the project site; and
e. The scheduling and timing of the Cultural Sensitivity Training noted in mitigation measure MM -CUL-4.

MM CUL-3: Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Resources: In the event that Native American cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of grading for the proposed Project, the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

1. Consulting Tribes Notified: within 24 hours of discovery, the consulting tribe(s) shall be notified via email and phone. The developer shall provide the city evidence of notification to consulting tribes. Consulting tribe(s) will be allowed access to the discovery, in order to assist with the significance evaluation.

2. Temporary Curation and Storage : During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location on site or at the offices of the project archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the pr oject site will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversight of the process; and

3. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and non-human remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The landowner shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Riverside Community and Economic D evelopment Department with evidence of same:
a. Accommodate the process for on-site reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the futur e reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing and basic recordation have been completed . b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository within Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore will be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility within Riverside County, to be accompanied by payment of the necessary fees for permanent curation;
c. If more than one Native American tribe or band is involved with the project and cannot come to a consensus as to the disposition of cultural materials, they shall be curated at the Western Science Center or Museum of Riverside by default; and
At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting monitoring activities conducted by the pr oject archaeologist and Native American Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources . This report shall be submitted to the City of Rivers ide, Eastern Information Center, and consulting tribes.

MM CUL-4: Cultural Sensitivity Training: The Secretary of Interior Standards County certified archaeologist and Native American monitors shall attend the pre -grading meeting with the developer/permit holder’s contractors to provide Cultural Sensitivity Training for all construction personnel. This shall include the procedures to be followed during ground disturbance in sensitive areas and protocols that apply in the event that unantici pated resources are discovered. Only construction personnel who have received this training can conduct construction and disturbance activities in sensitive areas. A sign- in sheet for attendees of this training shall be included in the Phase IV Monitoring Report.

c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

5c. Response: ( Source: GP 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.5 -1 - Archaeological Sensitivity and Figure 5.5 -2 - Prehistoric Cultural Resources Sensitivity)

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 25 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

Less than Significant Impact. As discussed, the proposed Project site is currently developed within an urbanized area. Due to the prior grading activities on site and surface disturbance s during past development of the site , no subsurface human remains are anticipated to occur at the site and the likelihood of encountering subsurface human remains during the proposed re-grading of the Project site is low. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered, the proper authorities would be notified, and standard procedures for the respectful handling of human remains during earthmoving activities would be followed in accordance with State law.

Consistent with the requirement of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(e), if human remains are encountered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the Riverside County Coroner notified immediately State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native Amer ican, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which shall determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the property owner, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.

The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Consistent with CCR Section 15064.5(d), if the remains are determined to be Native American and an MLD is notified, the City shall consult with the MLD as identified by the NAHC to develop an agreement for treatment and disposition of the remains. Implementation of the Condition of Approval for inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains would ensure enforcement of requirements if human remains are discovered on the site during Project construction activities.

Standard Condition of Approval for Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains:

In the event that human re mains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the Project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors, Project Archaeologist, and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. The Project proponent shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Riverside Community & Economic Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b) unless more current State law requirements are in effect at the time of the discovery. Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American.

If human remains are determined as those of Native American origin, the Applicant shall comply with the state relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC to determine the most likely descendant(s). The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The Dispos ition of the remains shall be overseen by the most likely descendant(s) to determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and any associated grave artifacts.

The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials will be propr ietary and not disclosed to the general public.

The County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission in accordance with California Public Resources Code 5097.98.

According to California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials a t one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052) determined in consultation between the Project proponent and the MLD. In the event that the Project proponent and the MLD are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains, State law will apply and the median and decision process will occur with the NAHC (see Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)).

Compliance with these provisions and implementation of t his standard Condition of Approval would ensure that any potential impacts to unknown buried human remains would be less than significant by ensuring appropriate examination, treatment, and protection of human remains as required by State law.

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 26 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

6. ENERGY
Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

6a. Response: (Source: Quick Quack Car Wash Energy Analysis Technical Report prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Appendix C))

Less than Significant Impact.

Construction Energy Demands
The estimated power cost of on -site electricity usage during the construction of the Project is assumed to be approximately $912.07. Additionally, based on the assumed power cost, it is estimated that the total electricity usage during construction, after full Project build-out, is calculated to be approximately 7,525 kilowatt hour (kWh). (Energy Analysis, p. 32)

Construction equipment used by the Project would result in single event consumption of approximately 15,638 gallons of diesel fuel. Construction equipment use of fuel would not be atypical for the type of construction proposed because there are no aspect s of the Project’s proposed construction process that are unusual or energy- intensive, and Project construction equipment would conform to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies. (Energy Analysis, p. 32)

CCR Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Best Availab le Control Measures (BACMs) inform construction equipment operators of this requirement.

Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials, and/or in response to citizen complaints. (Energy Analysis, p. 33)

Construction worker trips for full construction of the Project would result in the estimated fuel consumption of 1,885 gallons of fuel. Additionally, fuel consumption from construction vendor and hauling trips by medium-heavy duty trucks and heavy- heavy duty trucks (MHDTs and HHDTs) will total approximately 1,398 gallons. Diesel fuel would be supplied by City and regional commercial vendors. Indirectly, construction energy efficiencies and energy conservation would be achieved using bulk purchases, transport and use of construction materials. The 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) released by the California Energy Commission (CEC) has shown that fuel efficiencies are getting better within on and off -road vehicle engines due to mor e stringent government requirements. As supported by the preceding discussions, Project construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. (Energy Analysis, p. 33)

Operational Energy Demands
Annual vehicular trips and related vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by the operation of the Project would result in a fuel demand of 46,508 gallons of fuel. Fuel would be provided by current future commercial vendors. Trip generation and VMT generated by the P roject are consistent with other commercial uses of similar scale and configuration, as reflected respectively in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10 th Ed., 2017) and CalEEMod. As such, Project operations would not re sult in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption compared to other commercial uses. (Energy Analysis, p. 33)

Project facility operational energy demands are estimated at: 117,940 thousand British Thermal Units (kBTU)/year of natural gas; and 37,669 kWh/year of electricity. Natural gas would be supplied to the Project by SoCalGas; electricity would be supplied by Riverside Public Utilities (RPU). The Project proposes conventional industrial uses reflec ting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. The Project does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive and the energy demands in total would be comparable to other industrial uses of similar scale and configuration. (Energy Analysis, p. 34)

Lastly, the Project will comply with the applicable Title 24 standards. Compliance itself with applicable Title 24 standards will ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwi se unnecessary.

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 27 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

Per the details above, the proposed Project construction and operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The proposed Project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. Also, the proposed Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservation goals within the State of California. Impacts would be less than significant

b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

6b. Response: (Source: City of Riverside Public Utilities 2018 Integrated Resource Plan)

Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be required to comply with federal and state regulations which control energy use and consumption through various rules and programs. The Project’s consistency with the applicable state and local plans is discussed in Section 5.2 of the Quick Quack Car Wash Energy Analysis Report (Appendix B) and detailed below.

Federal Regulations
Consistency with Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) The local regional roadway systems would prov ide access and transportation to the Project. The Project would not interfere with nor obstruct intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be realized pursuant to the ISTEA because SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities on or through the Project site. (Energy Analysis, p. 36)

Consistency with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) The proposed Project site is located adjacent to major transportation corridors including access to the Interstate freeway system. The site was selected for the proposed Project to facilitate access, reduce VMT, and benefit from existing infrastructure systems. The Project supports the TEA -21’s strong planning processes and, therefore, is consistent with (i.e., would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct) the TEA-21’s implementation. (Energy Analysis, p. 36)

State of California Regulations
Consistency with Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) The proposed Project’s electricity would be provided by Riverside Public Utilities (RPU), and natural gas would be provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). The RPU’s Strategic Plan: 2017- 2021 and SoCalGas 2018 Corporate Sustainability Report build from existing State programs and policies. Therefore, the Project is consistent with (i.e., would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct) the 2020 IEPR’s goal implementation. Moreover, the Project would be consistent with the applicable Title 24 standards which ensure that the proposed Project’s energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Consequently, the proposed Project’s development would support the 2020 IEPR’s goals. (Energy Analysis, p. 36)

Consistency with the State of California Energy Plan
The Project site is located along major transportati on corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway system. The site selected for the Project facilitates access and takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems. The Project therefor e supports urban design and planning processes identified under the State of California Energy Plan, is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the State of California Energy Plan. (Energy Analysis, p. 37)

Consistency with California Code Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards The CEC 2019 Title 24 was adopted and implemented starting on January 1, 2020. The Project will be required to comply with the 2019 Title 24 standards. Also, the Energy Analysis notes that the CEC anticipates that non- residential buildings will use about 30% less energy than its preceding standards. The CalEEMod Title 24 – Electricity and Lighting Energy defaults in the Energy Analysis were reduced by 30% to reflect consistency with the 2019 Title 24 standards. In conclusion, the proposed Project would be consistent with Title 24. (Energy Analysis, p. 37)

Consistency with AB 1493 Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 28 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

AB 1493 is not applicable to the Project because it is a statewide measure that establishes vehicle emissions s tandards. No proposed Project feature would interfere with AB 1493 implementation and requirements. (Energy Analysis, p. 37)

Consistency with California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) California’s RPS is not applicable to the proposed Project as it is a statewide measure that establishes a renewable energy mix.

None of the proposed Project elements would interfere with RPS implementation requirements. (Energy Analysis, p. 37)

Consistency with Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) The proposed Project would use energy from RPU, which have committed to diversify their portfolio of energy sources by increasing energy from wind and solar sources. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of SB 350

Additionally, the proposed Project would be designed and constructed to implement the energy efficiency measures for new industrial developments and would include several measures designed to reduce energy consumption. (Energy Analysis, p. 37)

Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The proposed Project impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.

Would the project:

a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

7i. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 Figure Public Safety PS-1 – Regional Fault Zones & General Plan 2025 EIR, ArcGIS Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Map, Project Specific Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc. dated December 2020 (Appendix D))

Less than Significant Impact. A review of ArcGIS mapping reveals that the proposed Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone . Additionally, Figure PS-1 – Regional Fault Zones of the City of Riverside General Plan 2025 Public Safety Element does not reveal the proposed Project site to be within close proximity to fault lines or faul t zones. Moreover, per the proposed Project’s Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Appendix D ), the nearest significant active faults to the proposed Project site are the San Jacinto, Elsinore, and Chino fault zones, which are located approximately

8.5, 14.1, and 15.3 miles from the site, respectively. (Geotechnical Investigation, p. 4) The proposed Project’s Geotechnical Engineering Investigation additionally states that the proposed Project area shows no mapped faults on- site according to maps prepared by the California Geolog ic Survey and published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). Therefore, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
7ii. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 EIR Appendix E and Project Specific Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc. dated December 2020 (Appendix D ))

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is located in a seismically active area that has historically been affected by generally moderate to occasionally high levels of ground motion. The site lies within 50 miles of several active faults (San Jacinto Fault, the closest, approximately 8.5 miles from the proposed Project site); therefore, during the life of the proposed Project, the property would most likely experience similar moderate to occasionally high ground shaking from PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 29 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

these fault zones, as well as some background shaking from other seismically active areas of the Southern California region.

As noted in Response 7(a)(i) above, no known active faults are known to cross through the site.

Design and construction will be required to be in accordance with current California Building Code (CBC) requirements, which is anticipated to adequately address potential ground shaking effects on the proposed Project. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the City would review and approve plans to confirm that the siting, design and construction of the proposed Project is in accordance with the regulations established in the CBC, City Building Code, and/or professional engineering standards appropriate for the seismic zone in which such construction may occur. Additionally, grading plans would be subject to City review and approval in accordance with the Riverside Municipal Code ( RMC). Therefore, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause po tential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 7iii. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS -1 – Regional Fault Zones, Figure PS -2 – Liquefaction Zones, General Plan 2025 EIR Figure PS -3 – Soils with High Shrink -Swell Potential, and Project Specific Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Prepared by Krazan & Ass ociates, Inc. dated December 2020 (Appendix D))

Less than Significant Impact. Per the proposed Project’s Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Appendix D ), the proposed Project site is not located in an area designated by the State of California as a liquefaction hazard zone. Based on the conditions encountered and laboratory testing conducted during the proposed Project’s Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, the subsurface conditions at the proposed Project site are not considered t o be subject to liquefaction (Geotechnical Investigation, p. 4). Additionally, Figures PS -2 – Liquefaction Zones and PS -3 – Soils with High Shrink - Swell Potential of the City’s General Plan 2025 Public Safety Element indicate the proposed Project site is not located in either a liquefaction zone or an area of soils with high shrink- swell potential. Therefore, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

iv. Landslides?
7iv. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 EIR Figure 5.6 -1 – Areas Underlain by Steep Slope, Project Specific Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc. dated December 2020 (Appendix D))

Less than Significant Impact. The Geology and Soils section of the City’s General Plan 2025 FPEIR identifies “areas of high susceptibility to seismically induced landslides and rock falls correspond to steep slopes in excess of 30 percent” (FPEIR p. 5.6-6). Figure 5.6-1 of the General Plan 2025 EIR indicates that the proposed Project site is located on land identified as having a 0 to 10 percent slope. The proposed Project site is currently developed, relatively flat and level, and no significant slopes are proposed as part of the proposed Project. Additionally, the proposed Proj ect’s Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Appendix D ) provides recommendations that the proposed Project would follow to further reduce less than significant impacts related to landslides. (Geotechnical Investigation, p. 5) Therefore, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 7b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 EIR Figure 5.6- 1 – Areas Underlain by Steep Slope, Figure 5.6-4 – Soils, Table 5.6-B – Soil Types, Title 17 – Grading Code, and Project Specific Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc. dated December 2020 (Appendix D ))

Less than Significant Impact. As discussed, the proposed Project site is currently developed with mostly impervious surface due to existing building footprints and a small parking lot. Upon construction of the proposed Project, the site would remain mostly impervious; thus, potential soil erosion and/or loss of topsoil would be minimal. Further, prior to issuance of a grading PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 30 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

permit, a final approved WQMP will be required for the Project, as well as coverage under the State’s General Permit for Construction Activities. The WQMP outlines the design features to adequately address water quality, including erosion and sedimentation during long -term operations of the Project. Therefore, with implementation of the required WQMP, the proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Potential impacts woul d be less than significant.

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

7c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS -1 – Regional Fault Zones, Figure PS-2 – Liquefaction Zones, General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure PS-3 – Soils with High Shrink-Swell Potential, Figure 5.6-1 - Areas Underlain by Steep Slope, Figure 5.6- 4 – Soils, Table 5.6- B – Soil Types, and Project Specific Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc. dated December 2020 (Appendix D ))

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is uns table or that would become unstable as a result of the proposed Project. Please see the following discussions below regarding potential impacts related to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse.

Landslides
The Geology and Soils section of the City’s General Plan 2025 FPEIR identifies “areas of high susceptibility to seismically induced landslides and rock falls correspond to steep slopes in excess of 30 percent” (FPEIR p. 5.6-6). Figure 5.6-1 of the General Plan 2025 EIR indicates that the proposed Project site is located on land identified as having a 0 to 10 percent slope.

The proposed Project site is currently developed, relatively flat and level, and no significant slopes are proposed as part of the proposed Project. Additionally, the proposed Project’s Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Appendix D ) provides recommendations that the proposed Project would follow to further reduce less than significant impacts related to landslides. (Geotechnical Investigation, p. 5) Therefore, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides (see also under Response 7(a)(iv)).

Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is horizontal/lateral ground movement of relatively flat‐ lying soil deposits towards a free face such as an excavation, channel, or open body of water; typically, lateral spreading is associated with liquefaction of one or more subsurface layers near the bottom of the exposed slope. As discussed in Response 7(a)(iii), the proposed Project site is not located in an area designated by the State of California as a liquefaction hazard zone. (Geotechnical Investigation, p. 5 ) Based on the conditions encountered and laboratory testing conducted during the propose d Project’s Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, the subsurface conditions at the proposed Project site are not considered to be subject to liquefaction. Further, adherence to the City’s Grading and Subdivision Codes as well as the California Building Code in the design of this Project would prevent lateral spreading.

Subsidence
Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth’s surface owing to subsurface movement of earth materials. Subsidence is most often attributed to human act ivity, mainly from the removal of subsurface water. More than 80 percent of the identified subsidence throughout the United States is a result of exploitation of groundwater . Per the proposed Project’s Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, t est boring l ocations were checked for the presence of groundwater during and immediately following the drilling operations. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings drilled as part of our subsurface investigation. Based on a review of historic groundwater data, groundwater is expected to exist at depths in excess of 50 feet below site grades.

Liquefaction
Per the proposed Project’s Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Appendix D), the proposed Project site is not located in an area designated by the St ate of California as a liquefaction hazard zone. Based on the conditions encountered and laboratory testing conducted during the proposed Project’s Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, the subsurface conditions at the proposed Project site are not considered to be subject to liquefaction. (Geotechnical Investigation, p. 4) Additionall y, Figures PS-2 – Liquefaction Zones and PS-3 – Soils with High Shrink-Swell Potential of the City’s General Plan 2025 Public PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 31 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

Safety Element indicate the proposed Project site is not located in either a liquefaction zone or an area of soils with high shrink-swell potential. Therefore, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction (see also under Response 7(a)(iii)).

Collapse
As previously discussed, the proposed Project site is currently developed and consists of two unoccupied buildings.

Adherence to the City’s grading and building requirements would ensure that the proposed Project site is adequately prepared to prevent the collapse of graded pads and/or slopes.

The proposed Project would not be located on an unstable or potentially unstable geologic unit or soils that would potentially result in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

7d. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 EIR Section 5.6 Geology and Soils, Figure 5.6 -4 – Soils, Figure 5.6-4 – Soils, Table 5.6 -B – Soil Types, Figure 5.6- 5 – Soils with High Shrink -Swell Potential, Project Specific Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Prepared by Krazan & Associates, In c. dated December 2020 (Appendix D), and California Building Code as adopted by the City of Riverside and set out in Title 16 of the Riverside Municipal Code)

Less than Significant Impact. Expansive soils have the potential to undergo volume change, or shrinkage and swelling, with changes in soil moisture. As expansive soils dry, the soil shrinks; when moisture is reintroduced into the soil, the soil swells. Per the proposed Project’s Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Appendix D ), the ne ar-surface silty sand soils encountered at the proposed Project site were identified through laboratory testing as having a low expansion potential. (Geotechnical Investigation, p. 5) Therefore, the proposed Project would not be located on expansive soil a nd would not create a substantial direct or indirect risk to life or property. Potential impacts would be less than significant .

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

7e. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.6-4 – Soils, Table 5.6-B – Soil Types, Project Description)

No Impact. The proposed P roject would be served by sewer infrastructure and will not utilize or require septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the proposed Project will have no impact.

f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

7f. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Policy HP-1.3)

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is currently developed within an urbanized area . Due to the prior grading activities on site and surface disturbances during past development of the site , no paleontological resources are anticipated to occur at the site and the likelihood of encountering paleontological resources during the proposed re -grading of the Project site is low. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations protecting paleontological resources. Therefore, direct or indirect impacts related to previously undiscovered paleontological resources would be less than significant.

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 32 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

Would the project:

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?

8a. Response: (Source: Project Description, Quick Quack Car Wash Greenhouse Gas Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads (GHGA) (Appendix E))

Less than Significant Impact. The City of Riverside has not adopted its own numeric threshold of significance for determining Greenhous Gas (GHG) emissions impacts. An acceptable screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent/ year (MTCO2e/yr) is currently used to determine if additional analysis is required for small projects. This approach is a widely accepted screening threshold used by the City and numerous cities in the SCAB and is based on the SCAQMD staff’s proposed GHG screening threshold for stationary source emissions for non-industrial projects, as described in the SCAQMD’s Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans (“SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold”). The SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold identifies a screening threshold to determine whether additional analysis is required. (GHG Analysis, p. 50)

As shown in Table 3 (Table 3-4 from the GHG Analysis Report, Appendix E), the Project will result in approximately 480.84 MTCO2e/yr; the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD/City’s screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr.

Table 3: Project GHG Emissions
Emission Source Emissions (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 5.56 1.44E-03 7.57E-05 5.61
Area Source 1.09E-03 0.00 0.00 1.16E-03
Energy Source 19.79 6.80E-04 1.80E-04 19.86
Mobile Source 429.57 0.03 0.03 438.49
Waste 2.83 0.17 0.00 7.02
Water Usage 8.47 0.04 1.04E-03 9.85
Total CO2e (All Sources) 480.84

Thus, project-related emissions would have a less than significant direct or indirect impact on GHG and climate change and no mitigation or further analysis is required. (GHG Analysis, p. 50)

b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 33 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

8b. Response: (Source: Project Description and Quick Quack Car Wash Greenhouse Gas Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads (GHGA) (Appendix E))

Less than Significant Impact. Pursuant to 15604.4 of the CEQA guidelines, a lead agency may rely on qualitative analysis or performance-based standards to determine the significance of impacts from GHG emissions. In November 2017, CARB released the Final 2017 Scoping Plan Update, which identifies the State’s post-2020 reduction strategy. As project building is anticipated to occur in 2022, consistency with SB32 as discussed below.

Consistency with SB 32 (2017 Scoping Plan Update)
The 2017 Scoping Plan Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30- 15 and codified by SB 32. Table 3-5 of the GHG Analysis (Appendix E) summarizes the proposed Project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan. The summary confirms that the Project would not conflict with any of the provisions of the Scoping Plan and in fact supports seven of the action categories. (GHG Analysis, p. 50)

As outlined in Table 3.5: 2017 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary of the GHG Analysis, the Project would not conflict with any of the 2017 Scoping Plan elements as any regulations adopted would apply directly or indirectly to the Project.

Furthermore, recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Notwithstanding, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to this threshold, as the Project exceeds the applicable nume ric screening thresholds for GHG emissions and therefore has potential to impede the State’s ability to achieve the 40% below 1990 level reduction target. (GHG Analysis, p. 55)

The City of Riverside Restorative Growthprint Climate Action Plan (RRG-CAP) The City of Riverside collaborated with the Western Riverside council of Governments (WRCOG) on a Subregional Climate Action Plan (CAP). The City of Riverside Restorative Growthprint Climate Action Plan (RRG-CAP) builds on the WRCOG Subregional CAP commitments and provides the City GHG reduction goals from the year 2020 through the year 2035. The RRG-CAP includes measures that would reduce GHG emissions in the City. Consistency with these measures is discussed in Table 3 -6 of the GHG Analysis ( Appendix E). The Table indicates that the proposed Project’s actions would either not apply or be consistent with all state, regulatory, and local reduction measures. (GHG Analysis, pp. 55-59)

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposed of reducing the emissions of GHGs. (GHG Analysis, p. 59) Potential impacts would be less than significant.

9. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

Would the project:

a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

9a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Public Safety Element, GP 2025 FPEIR, California Health and Safety Code, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, California Building Code)

Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed Project has the potential to create a hazard to the public or environment through the routine transportation, use, and disposal of cons truction-related hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents, and other materials. These materials are typical materials delivered to construction sites. However, due to the limited quantities of these materials to be used by the proposed Project , they are not considered hazardous to the public at large. In accordance with the City’s Hazardous Materials Policy, the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during the construction and operation of the site would be conducted pursuant to all applicable local, State, and federal laws, and in cooperation with the County’s Department of Environmental Health. Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) implemented by Title 13 of the CCR describes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials .

Compliance with all applicable local, State, and federal laws related to the transportation, use, and storage of hazardous materials would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit, use, and storage.

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 34 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

With regard to the proposed Project operations, widely used hazardous materials common at commercial uses include paints and other solvents, cleaners, and pesticides. Operation of the proposed car wash would involve the use of cleaning solutions for daily operation and paints for routine maintenance and recoating of structures. The remnants of these and other products are disposed of as household hazardous waste (HHW) that includes used dead batteries, electronic wastes, and other wastes that are prohibited or discouraged from being disposed of at local landfills. Use of common household hazardous materials and their disposal does not present a substantial health risk to the community. Impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or wastes would be less than significant.

Compliance with all applicable local, State and federal laws would further ensure a less than significant impact from routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. As such, the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact related to the transport, use, or disposal of any hazardous material either directly, indirectly and cumulatively.

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?

9b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Public Safety Element, California Health and Safety Code, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, California Building Code, City of Riverside’s EOP)

Less than Significant Impact. As identified in Threshold 9(a), above, handling, storing, transport, and use of hazardous or potentially materials would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including but not limited to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations implemented by Title 13 of the CCR. Adherence with the applicable policies and programs of these agencies will ensure that any interaction with hazardous materials would occur in the safest possible manner, reducing the opportunity for the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. The Project includes the demolition activities which would result in approximately 696 tons of debris that would be hauled off-site to a recycling facility located approximately 10 miles from th e Project site. Any handling of hazardous materials will be limited in both quantities and concentrations. As mandated by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), all hazardous materials stored on ‐site will be accompanied by a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), which, in the case of accidental release, will inform on‐site personnel as to the necessary remediation procedures.

With regard to operation, the proposed car wash would not involve the use of hazardous materials or generate hazardous waste that could 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. Project operation would involve the use of solvents, cleaners, and waxes used for typical car wash operations, and with compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including but not limited to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations implemented by Title 13 of the CCR. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

9c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Public Safety and Education Elements, GP 2025 FPEIR Table 5.7- D - CalARP RMP Facilities in the Project Area, Figure 5.13-2 – Riverside Unified School District RUSD Boundaries, Table 5.13-D RUSD Schools, California Health and Safe ty Code, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, California Building Code)

No Impact. The proposed P roject does not involve any hazardous emissions or handling of any hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing school. The Project site is located approximately 0. 84-mile from the nearest existing or proposed school ( William Howard Taft Elementary School, 959 Mission Grove Pkwy N , Riverside, CA 92506). Therefore, the Project would have no impact regarding emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 35 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

9d. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-5 – Hazardous Waste Sites, DTSC EnviroStor Database Listed Sites)

No Impact. A search of the Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor database (on August 31, 2021) and the California Environmental Protection Agency “Cortese List” complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 indicated there are no sites of concern regarding hazardous materials on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. In addition, the General Plan 2025 FPEIR (Figure 5.7- 1) does not identify any hazardous waste sites on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, t he project would have no impact to creating any significant hazard to the public or environment directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

9e. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS -6B – Airport Safety Zones and Influence Areas, and March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Airport Land Use Commission Development Review, May 13, 2021)

Less than Significant Impact. The nearest airport to the Project site is the March Air Reserve Base, located approximately

3.27 miles southeast of the site. Riverside Municipal Airport is located approximately 6.7 miles northwest of the Project site.

The proposed Project is located within Zone C2 of the March Air Reserve Base Ai rport Land Use Compatibility (MARB ALUC) Plan and as depicted on Figure PS -6B of the General Plan 2025. Zone C2 does not place any restrictions on the development of a car wash . Further, the Airport Land Use Commission Riverside County conducted an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Development Review of the proposed Project, Case No. PR -2021-001023 dated May 13, 2021, and found it to be consistent with the 2014 MARB ALUC Plan, subject to seven standard conditions of approval. With compliance with these sta ndard conditions of approval, the Project will not conflict with the MARB ALUC Plan or result in a safety hazard.

The proposed Project is also located outside of the noise contours as described in the MARB ALUC Plan. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in on -site employees on site being affected by a safety hazard or excessive noise from an airport. Less than significant impact would occur directly, indirectly, or cumulatively with implementation of the proposed Project.

f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

9f. Response: (Source: GP 2025 FPEIR Chapter 7.5.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials, City of Riverside’s EOP, 2002 and Riverside Operational Area – Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP, 2004 Part 1, and OEM’s Strategic Plan)

Less than Significant Impact. The project will be served by existing streets, Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway. All streets have been designed to meet the Public Works and Fire Departments’ specifications. No street closures are required duri ng the project’s construction. The proposed Project would not interfere or impede with any emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact directly, indirectly and cumulatively to an emergency response or evacuation plan.

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 36 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

9g. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-7 – Fire Hazard Areas, GIS Map Layer VHFSZ 2010, Riverside Operational Area – Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP, 2004 Part 1/Part 2 and OEM’s Strategic Plan, CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps - https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-prevention-planning- engineering/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/)

No Impact. The Project site is located in an urbanized portion of Riverside and is not located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Very High or High Fire Hazard Severity Zone nor is it located within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) Very High or High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as defined by CAL FIRE and the Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map programs . The Project site is in a developed area with no wildland areas in the immediate vicinity. With implementation of General Plan 2025 policies, compliance with existing codes and standards, and through Fire Department review and approval, no impact from wildland fires due to Project implementation directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.

Would the project:

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

10a. Response: (Source: GP 2025 FPEIR Table 5.8- A – Beneficial Uses Receiving Water, and Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Omega Engineering Consultants, Inc. dated February 11, 2021 (Appendix F))

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed P roject site is currently developed with mostly impervious surface due to existing building footprints and a small parking lot. Upon construction of the proposed Project the permeable area of the site would decrease compared to existing conditions . Expected pollutant sources from the Project include on- site storm drain inlets, landscape/outdoor pesticide use, refuse areas, sidewalks, and a parking lot.

Prior to issuance of a grading permit , a final approved WQMP will be required for the P roject. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is not required given that the Project is under an acre in size . The Preliminary Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) includes following post-construction Low Impact Development (LID) Principles.

The Preliminary Project Specific WQMP outlines the LID Best Management Practices (BMPs) required to adequately meet water quality standards and reduce storm water runoff and include 1 bioretention area. The LID Principles and LID BMPs have been incorporated into the site design to fully address all expected pollutant sources and storm water runoff volumes.

With compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws regulating surface water quality including implementation of the Project specif ic WQMP, the proposed P roject would result in a less than significant impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively to any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?

10b. Response: (Source: GP 2025 FPEIR Section 5.16 – Utilities and Service Systems, Project Specific Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared by Krazan & Associates, Inc. (Appendix D ), Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Omega Engineering Consultants, Inc. dated February 11, 2021 (Appendix F), Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, https://www.mwdh2o.com/planning-for-tomorrow/how-we-plan/, and Western Municipal Water Distri ct 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, https://wmwd.com/215/Urban-Water-Management-Plan)

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 37 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would be served by Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) for potable water supply. The Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared for the proposed Project reviewed historic groundwater data and groundwater is expected to exist at depths in excess of 50 feet below site grades. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test borings drilled on-site as part of the proposed Project site’s subsurface investigation. (Geotechnical Investigation, p. 4) The development of the site would not impede groundwater recharge because it does not currently provide for groundwater recharge of stormwater at the site.

Pollutant and flow control BMPs outlined in the WQMP would maintain the site’s existing hydrologic response. The development of the proposed Project would not significantly alter the volume of stormwater runoff leaving the site or the point of discharge from the site and would not in turn alter groundwater management of downstream receiving water bodies, including the basin.

As outlined in the Project Description, the majority of water used in car washing is reclaimed and is stor ed in on-site storage tanks and recycled for subsequent washes. Water consumed and discharged to the City’s wastewater transmission system (consumptive water use) would average 12 to 15 gallons per vehicle. Consumptive water use would range from 3,900 gallons per day for less busy weekdays up to 4,500 gallons per day on Fridays and Saturdays, when the facility would be busier.

In 2001, California adopted SB 610 and SB 221, thereby amending the California Water Code. Under these new laws, certain types of development projects are now required to provide detailed water supply assessments (WSAs) to planning agencies.

The primary purpose of a WSA is to determine if the identified water supply or water supplier will be able to meet projected demands for the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, over a 20 -year projection and with consideration to normal, dry, and multi -dry water years. Thresholds requiring the preparation of a WSA include residential developments of more than 500 dwelling units, shopping centers or business establishments employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space, commercial office buildings employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space, a nd projects that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. As the Project consists of a business establishment employing less than 1,000 persons and having less than 250,000 square feet of floor space, the Project falls well below the threshold that would trigger the need for a project-specific WSA.

WMWD is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District which obtains its water from the Colorado River and State Water Project (SWP). Other sources of WMWD’s supply include surplus water from the City of Riverside. (GP 2025 FPEIR, p. 5.16 -37) Metropolitan’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan ( UWMP) provides an assessment and summary of Metropolitan’s water service reliability outlook through 2045. As a reporting documents, the UWMP is updated every five years to reflect changes in water demand and supply projections . Metropolitan has completed its water service reliability assessment and determined that it has supply capabilities sufficient to meet expected demands from 2025 through 2045 under single dry-year and a period of drought lasting five consecutive years, as well as in a normal water year hydrological condition. (Metropolitan UWMP, pp. ES-6 – ES-7) WMWD’s prioritizes the use of local supply sources and uses imported water to meet the remaining retail water demands that are not met by local supplies. Retail potable demands exceed local supplies so imported water is used to meet the balance of retail demand. Local groundwater is not expected to be reduced in dry years. Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP projects the ability to meet project imparted water demands under normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions and Western wholesale projects a surplus of imported water supplies that are available to WMWD retail if needed.

WMWD anticipated adequate supplies for years 2025 to 2045 to meet retail demand under normal, single dry and multiple - dry year conditions. (WMWD UWMP p., 11-4)

In addition, the Project would be subject to compliance with the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance and the California Green Building Code which require increased water use efficiencies; and based on the water supply and demand projections, projected water supplies would be sufficient to meet the projected water demand for the Project.

Therefore, there will be less than significant impacts related to groundwater recharge or supplies either directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 38 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or-off-site? 10i Response: (Source: Preliminary grading plan, and Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Omega Engineering Consultants, Inc. dated February 11, 2021 (Appendix F))

Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is relatively flat, developed land. The existing buildings and parking lot will be demolished, the site re-graded, and the new car wash development constructed. There are no major drainage improvements or natural drainage courses, including a stream or river, on site that would be altered from the project. A SWPPP will not be required since the proposed Project site is under an acre in size.

As the site will be developed with impervious surfaces, largely paving for parking and drive aisles, and impervious surfaces will be landscaped, the site is not anticipated to generate substantial erosion or siltation on -or-off-site. In addition, the Preliminary Project Specific WQMP outlines the LID Best Management Practices (BMPs) required to adequately meet water quality standards and reduce storm water runoff and include 1 bioretention area. The LID Principles and LID BMPs have been incorporated into the site design to fully address all expected pollutant sources and storm water runoff volumes.

The Project would not have any substantial effects on a stream or river, as none are located on or in close proximity to the Project site. Through compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations, including implementation of the WQMP, the proposed Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of an on -site stream. Impacts from substantial erosion or siltation on or off site as a result of altering existin g drainage patterns would be less than significant directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.

ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -or-off-
site?

10ii Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-4 – Flood Hazard Areas, Preliminary grading plan, and Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Omega Engineering Consultants, Inc. dated February 11, 2021 (Appendix F))

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site does not have any natural drainage patterns or streams as the entire site has been previously developed with two structures and associated parking lot. The Pro ject site is not located within a flood hazard area.

Roof runoff will be directed via roof drain and discharge into several pervious areas along the perimeter of the proposed building. All the proposed impervious surface will drain via sheet flow into the proposed biofiltration basin located on the southern side of the development f or treatment and then conveyed to the City’s storm drainage system. The basin’s size is large enough to meet the design capture volume and prevent flooding on-or-off-site. (WQMP, pp. 8-9) The drainage pattern of the site would not be substantially altered in a manner that could cause increases in flooding on-or-off-site. Impacts from flooding on or off site as a result of increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff would be less than significant directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.

iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or

10iii Response: (Source: Preliminary grading plan, and Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Omega Engineering Consultants, Inc. dated February 11, 2021 (Appendix F))

Less than Significant Impact. As noted in Threshold 10(c)(ii) above, the Project will fully address stormwater runoff such that through the implementation of BMPs , runoff water will not exceed the capacity of on-or-off-site drainage facilities and result in flooding off-site. With implementation of the WQMP, including the proposed on-site biofiltration basin, infiltration and operational BMPs, impacts related to stormwater runoff, drainage system capacity, and polluted runoff, would be reduced PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 39 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

to less than significant levels. Compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations , including implementation of the WQMP, would ensure impacts from generat ed runoff water exceeding the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or contributing substantial additional sources of polluted runoff would be less than significant directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.

iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
10c.iv Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS -4 – Flood Hazard Areas, Federal Emergency Management Administration FEMA Flood Map Service Center Website https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home.

Map 06065C0740G, and Project Specific Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Omega Engineering Consultants, Inc. dated February 11, 2021 (Appendix F))

No Impact. The Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area was reviewed on the Federal Emergency Management Agency website for the Project site. The Project site is located within an Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X area (Flood Insurance Rate Map 06065C0740G). Given the existing topography of the Project site, flooding within the Project site is not expected to occur. Implementation of the proposed Project would not impede or redirect flood flows. No impact directly, indirectly, and cumulatively would occur.

d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

10d. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS -4 – Flood Hazard Areas, GP 2025 FPEIR Chapter 7.5.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality, GP 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.8.3 – Flood Area Zones, and Google Earth)

No Impact. Tsunamis are large tidal waves that occur in coastal areas and the Project site is not located in a coastal area and would not be susceptible to tsunamis. A seiche is a to-and-fro vibration of a waterbody that is similar to the slopping of water in a basin. Once initiated, oscillation within the waterbody can continue independently. Seiches are often triggered by earthquakes. The most likely areas that could be subject to a seiche are the areas surrounding lakes. The Project site is not within proximity to Lake Mathews (8 miles), Lake Evans (6.2 miles), or the Santa Ana River (6.3 miles). The project site is also not located within a flood zone area or a dam inundation area as seen on Figure 5.8 -2 in the GP FPEIR. Therefore, n o impact potential exists for release of pollutants associated with flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche, either directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

10e. Response: (Source: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Omega Engineering Consultants, Inc. dated February 11, 2021 (Appendix F ), Santa Ana River Basin Plan https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/ , Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, https://www.mwdh2o.com/planning-for- tomorrow/how-we-plan/, and Western Municipal Water District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, https://wmwd.com/215/Urban-Water-Management-Plan)

Less than Significant Impact. Coverage under the State’s General Permit for Construction Activities, administered by the State Water Resources Control Board, requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). However, a SWPPP is not required because the proposed Project is under an acre in size. The Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan ( WQMP) includes post-construction Low Impact Development (LID) Principles and Best Management Practices (BMPs) required to adequately meet water quality standards and reduce storm water runoff . The LID Principles and LID BMPs have been incorporated into the site design to fully address all expected pollutant sources and storm water runoff volumes, reducing the Project’s potential impacts on downstream receiving waterbodies covered in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin Plan (Region 8). Compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations , including implementation of the WQMP, would ensure the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of this water quality control plan.

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 40 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

As outlined in 10(b) above, the majority of water used in car washing is reclaimed and is stored in on -site storage tanks and recycled for subsequent washes. Water consumed and discharged to the City’s wastewater transmission system (consumptive water use) would average 12 to 15 gallons per vehicle and range from 3,900 gallons up to 4,500 gallons per day.

WMWD, the water purveyor for the Project, is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District which obtains its water from the Colorado River and State Water Project (SWP). Other sources of WMWD’s supply include surplus water from the City of Riverside. (GP 2025 FPEIR, p. 5.16-37) Metropolitan’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) provides an assessment and summary of Metropolitan’s water service reliability outlook through 2045. As a reporting documents, the UWMP is updated every five years to reflect changes in water demand and supply proje ctions. Metropolitan has completed its water service reliability assessment and determined that it has supply capabilities sufficient to meet expected demands from 2025 through 2045 under single dry-year and a period of drought lasting five consecutive years, as well as in a normal water year hydrological condition. (Metropolitan UWMP, pp. ES -6 – ES-7) WMWD’s prioritizes the use of local supply sources and uses imported water to meet the remaining retail water demands that are not met by local supplies. Retail potable demands exceed local supplies so imported water is used to meet the balance of retail demand. Local groundwater is not expected to be reduced in dry years. Metropolitan’s 2020 UWMP projects the ability to meet project imparted water demands under normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions and Western wholesale projects a surplus of imported water supplies that are available to WMWD retail if needed. WMWD anticipated adequate supplies for years 2025 to 2045 to meet retail demand under normal, single dry and multiple-dry year conditions. (WMWD UWMP p., 11-4)

Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the current Metropolitan or WMWD URMPs. Impacts would be less than significant directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING:

Would the project:

a. Physically divide an established community?
11a. Response: (Source: Project Description, General Plan 2025 PEIR Land Use and Urban Design Element Figure

5.9-3 Existing Land Uses 2003, Project site plan)

No Impact. The proposed Project site is currently developed with two existing structures, currently vacant, former office use. The Project site is located at the northwest corner of Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway with office use to the west (across Mission Grove Parkway), residential development to the north and west, and commercial uses to the south (across Alessandro Boulevard). Implementation of the proposed Project will result in redevelopment of a former office use to a commercial use, and associated GPA from O - Office to C - Commercial, and Rezone the project site from O - Office Zone to CG – Commercial General Zone. Thus, the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community.

Therefore, there are no impacts related to dividing an established community, directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

11b. Response: (Source: Project Description, General Plan 2025 PEIR Land Use and Urban Design Element Figure

5.9-3 Existing Land Uses 2003, Project site plan, Riverside Municipal Code 19.110.010)

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site currently has a General Plan designation of O - Office and zoning of O – Office Zone. The proposed Project would require a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to amend the land use designation from O – Office to C – Commercial and a Zoning Code Amendment (RZ) to rezone the project site from O – Office Zone to CG – Commercial General Zone. The CG Zone is intended to allow for more intense service commercial retail, office, and repair uses, and allows for some outdoor retail uses (Riverside Municipal Code 19.110.010). The General Plan Amendment and Rezone would not cause a significant environmental impact, especially as the site is already developed, and surrounded by other commercial and residential development. As outlined in responses to 3.a, 4.a and 4.f, and 8.b, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan, applicable GP 2025 policies, the MSHCP, or the City’s Climate Action Plan.

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 41 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

The proposed Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and would serve as an amenity to the surrounding residential uses and supplement the commercial uses to the south (across Alessandro Boulevard). For these reasons, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact directly, indirectly, or cumulatively on applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations.

12. MINERAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

12a. Response: ( Source: California Department of Conservation – Mineral Land Classification Map of Plate 7.13 Riverside East, and General Plan 2025, General Plan 2025 Figure OS-1 – Mineral Resources)

No Impact. State-classified Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) are shown in Mineral Land Classification Map prepared by California Department of Conservation and is also shown in the General Plan 2025 Open Space/Conservation Element .

Per GP 2025, Figure OS -1 Mineral Resources, t he proposed Project site is located in an MRZ -3 Zone, which indicates the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data. The classification system is intended to ensure consideration of statewide or regionally significant mineral deposits by the City in planning and development administration.

These mineral designations are intended to prevent incompatible land use development on areas determined to have significant mineral resource deposits. The General Plan 2025 does not include specific policies regarding property identified as MRZ-3 and has not designated the Project site for mineral resource related uses. Additionally, the Project site was already developed as an office development, and thus is currently not available for mineral extraction purposes. The loss of known mineral resources valuable locally or regionally would not occur because of the proposed Project and no further analysis is required. Therefore, the proposed Project will have no impact on mineral resources directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

12b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure – OS-1 – Mineral Resources)

No Impact. The GP 2025 FPEIR determined that there are no specific areas with the City boundary or the City Proposed Sphere of Influence Area which have locally -important mineral resource recovery sites and that the implementation of the General Plan 2025 would not significantly preclude the ability to extract state -designated resources. The proposed Project site does not contain a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, there is no impact from implementation of the proposed Project.

13. NOISE.

Would the project result in:

a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

13a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure N -5 – 2025 Roadway Noise, Section 5.11 – Noise of the General Plan and Supporting Documents Environmental Impact Report; Project Site Plans; Quick Quack Carwash Noise Impact Study prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC dated November 30, 2021 (Appendix G))

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The construction and operational noise analysis is based on the Project’s Noise Impact Study. Construction and operational noise standards for the City of Riverside are provided by the City of Riverside Noise Element of the General Plan 2025 and the City Municipal Code.

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 42 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

The City of Riverside outlines their noise regulations and standards within the Noise Element from the General Plan 2025 and Title 7 of the Municipal Code. For purposes of this analysis, the City’s General Plan and Noise Ordinance (Chapter 7.05) is used to evaluate the roadway noise and stationary noise impacts to and from the proposed P roject. The Noise Element outlines Goals and Polices and establishes Noise/La nd Use Compatibility Criteria (Noise Impact Study, Figure N-10). This assessment will compare the project noise levels to the residential noise limits since the proposed project is located directly adjacent to existing residential land uses. The project impacts were compared to the City’s residential noise standards. Table

7.25.010A – Exterior Noise Standards describes the exterior noise standards for emanations from a stationary noise source, such as the proposed Project, as it affects adjacent properties. For residential land uses, the noise levels are 45 dBA for nighttime (10PM-7AM) and 55 dBA for daytime (7AM to 10PM).

Existing Conditions: One (1) twenty -four (24) hour ambient noise measurement was conducted in the proposed Project vicinity to determine the existing ambient noise levels. LT1 was taken at the northwest corner of the project site and LT2 was taken on the western property line. The noise measurement results indicate that traffic from Alessandro Boulevard is the main source of noise which impacts the proposed Project and surrounding area. Also, the results confirm that the existing noise level measurements taken exceed the ambient noise levels stated in the City’s Noise Ordinance. The long -term noise data results are shown in Table 4 and 5 (Noise Impact Study, Table 2 and 3). Noise data indicates the ambient noise level in the project area ranges between 64 dBA Leq to 66 dBA Leq at LT1 and 64 dBA Leq to 67 dBA Leq at LT2. The quietest day/evening hourly level occurred between 7PM and 8PM at 64 dBA, Leq(h). (Noise Impact Study, pp. 19-20)

Table 4: Long-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA) LT1
Date Time dB(A) LEQ LMAX LMIN L2 L8 L25 L50 L90 L99
11/18/2021 2PM-3PM 64.9 76.0 57.4 70.0 68.7 67.5 63.6 61.4 60.0 11/18/2021 3PM-4PM 64.9 79.1 55.8 68.4 67.3 66.8 64.4 61.8 60.1 11/18/2021 4PM-5PM 65.5 79.8 58.1 68.2 67.7 67.0 64.8 62.3 61.3 11/18/2021 5PM-6PM 65.4 70.3 63.1 68.3 67.3 67.0 65.0 62.8 61.6 11/18/2021 6PM-7PM 65.7 78.5 58.2 71.7 70.1 67.2 64.4 62.0 60.2 11/18/2021 7PM-8PM 64.1 70.6 58.9 66.8 66.5 66.3 63.5 61.9 61.1 11/18/2021 8PM-9PM 64.7 77.1 58.5 71.2 68.6 67.0 63.2 61.2 60.6 Notes:

1. Long-term noise monitoring location (LT1) is illustrated in Exhibit E. The quietest hourly noise interval during operational hours is highlighted in orange.

Table 5: Long-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA) LT2
Date Time dB(A) LEQ LMAX LMIN L2 L8 L25 L50 L90 L99
11/18/2021 2PM-3PM 66.5 85.2 54.9 73.5 71.0 68.7 64.1 59.6 57.9 11/18/2021 3PM-4PM 66.3 82.9 54.3 70.1 69.5 68.7 65.5 60.6 58.6 11/18/2021 4PM-5PM 66.5 81.7 56.0 70.8 69.3 68.8 65.8 61.2 59.6 11/18/2021 5PM-6PM 65.8 72.8 62.5 69.3 68.6 68.0 64.8 60.8 59.5 11/18/2021 6PM-7PM 65.9 78.7 56.7 69.5 68.8 68.3 64.4 60.9 59.5 11/18/2021 7PM-8PM 64.2 72.3 58.5 67.4 66.8 66.2 63.6 61.8 61.0 11/18/2021 8PM-9PM 64.6 77.6 57.6 70.0 68.7 67.7 63.1 60.8 60.4 Notes:

1. Long-term noise monitoring location (LT2) is illustrated in Exhibit E. The quietest hourly noise interval during operational hours is highlighted in orange.

Short-Term Construction Noise: Construction noise is considered a short-term impact and would be considered significant if construction activities are taken outside the allowable times as described in the City’s Municipal Code. The proposed Project construction would occur during the City’s permissible hours per the Municipal Code. Construction noise will have PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 43 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise level above the existing within the project vicinity however the City has an exemption for construction that occurs within the allowable daytime hours of 7 AM to 10 PM. With compliance with the allowable times as described in the City’s Municipal Code, potential noise impacts from construction are considered less than significant. However, noise reduction measures are outlined as mitigation measures MM NOI-1 through MM NOI-5, to further reduce construction noise to the greatest extent possible.

Long-Term Off-Site Stationary Noise: Stationary noise impacts were analyzed from the on -site noise sources such as car wash, dryers/blowers, and vacuums to the nearest sensitive receptors, residential uses to the west, northwest, and north. The worst-case stationary noise was modeled using SoundPLAN acoustical modeling software. The worst-case scenario assumes the blowers are always operational when , in reality, the noise will be intermittent and cycle on/off depending on customer usage. Project operations are proposed to occur between the h ours of 7AM and 9PM, which is within the City’s allowable daytime hours of 7AM to 10PM. Operating outside the allowable hours has the potential to exceed the City’s noise ordinance (Section 112.04). A total of five (5) receptors were modeled to evaluate the Project’s operational impact. The receptors are locations within the adjacent residential area, right outside the Projects western and northwestern boundary/property line and the closest exterior façade of buildings, including at the 1 st and 2nd floors. The noise impact analysis compares the Project’s operational plus ambient noise levels to the ambient only condition. (Noise Impact Study, p. 21 and 22)

The proposed Project incorporated the following design features in order to attenuate (reduce) noise generated from the Project, the greatest noise coming from the car wash tunnel and equipment such as driers, to adjacent residential uses:
• The Project will use a 120 horsepower (HP) International Drying Cooperation Stealth system or equivalent. • Tunnel exit and entrance dimensions will be 10- feet wide by 10 feet tall. The roll- up door will be rolled down 1 foot, leaving 9-foot-tall openings.
• An acoustic liner (quiet fiber acoustic perforated metal panels or equivalent) will line 15-feet of the exit and entrance of the tunnel.
• An 8-foot-tall American Precast Concrete, Inc. precast concrete wall will be installed along the Project site’s north and west property lines. The wall must have a minimum surface weight of 4.2 pounds per square foot. • Prior to issue of occupancy permit, applicant will conduct a post -construction noise survey to verify compliance to the City’s residential noise requirements.

The “existing” noise levels and contours at the nearest sensitive receptors are shown in Exhibit F of the Noise Impact Study and the minimum existing noise levels average at 64 dBA Leq at the various receptors. Table 6 demonstrates the Project plus ambient noise levels at adjacent residential uses with implementation of the above listed design features. Project plus ambient noise levels projections are anticipated to be 64 dBA, Leq at the receptors (R1-R5) and does not exceed the existing ambient noise level. (Noise Impact Study, p. 22)

Table 6: Worst-Case Predicted Operational Leq Noise Levels (dBA)

Receptor1

Floor
Existing
Ambient
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)2

Project Noise
Level (dBA,
Leq)
Total
Combined
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)

Exterior
Noise Limit
(dBA, Leq)
Change in
Noise Level as
Result of
Project

Exceeds
Limit?
1 1

64 49 64

64 0 No
2 54 64 0 No
2 1 43 64 0 No
2 45 64 0 No
3 1 45 64 0 No
4 1 44 64 0 No
5 1 49 64 0 No
Notes:

1. Receptors 1 through 5 represent residential use.

2. See Table 2 for ambient levels. As the ambient exceeds the exterior 55 dBA residential standard, the ambient must not be exceeded.

3. See Exhibit F for the operational noise level projections.

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 44 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

The proposed Project has incorporated design features to reduce the operational noise impacts on the adjacent residential uses such that the existing ambient noise levels, at the quietest measured time and level, are not exceeded.

Therefore, the Project would not result in an increase in ambient noise at the adjacent residential uses, and noise impacts are less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures:

NOI-1: Construction shall occur during the permissible hours as defined in section 7.35.010(B)(5) and 7.35.020(G) of the Riverside Municipal Code (RMC).

NOI-2: During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropri ate noise attenuating devices.

NOI-3: The contractor shall locate equipment staging areas that will create the greatest distance between construction - related noise/vibration sources and sensitive receptors nearest the project site, to the greatest extent feasible, during all project construction.

NOI-4: Idling equipment shall be turned off when not in use.

NOI-5: Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.

b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?

13b. Response: (Source: General Plan Figure N-1 – 2003 Roadway Noise, Figure N-2 – 2003 Freeway Noise, Figure N-3 – 2003 Railway Noise, Figure N -5 – 2025 Roadway Noise, Figure N -6 – 2025 Freeway Noise, Figure N -7 – 2025 Railroad Noise, Figure N -9 – March ARB Noise Contours, FPEIR Table 5.11 -G – Vibration Source Levels For Construction Equipment, Quick Quack Carwash Noise Impact Study prepared by MD Acoustics, LLC dated November 30, 2021 (Appendix G))

Less than Significant Impact. Ground-borne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. The effects of ground-borne vibrations typically only cause a nuisance to people, but at extreme vibration levels, damage to buildings or other structures may occur. Although ground- borne vibration can be felt outdoors, it is typically only an annoyance to people indoors where the associated effects of the shaking of a building can be notable.

Ground-borne noise is an effect of ground -borne vibration and only exists indoors since it is produced from noise radiated from the motion of the walls and floors of a room and may also consist of the rattling of windows or dishes on shelves.

Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. The construction of the proposed project would not require equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The two pieces of equipment with the most potential to cause vibr atory impact are the truck and the roller. According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment manual, a loaded truck has a Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) of 0.076 inches /second (86 VdB) at 25 feet, and a vibratory rol ler has a PPV of 0.210 inches /second (94 VdB) at 25 f eet. The nearest vibration -sensitive building is located 25 feet from the property line of the construction site.

Therefore, the maximum PPV at the noise- sensitive locations is 0.089 in/sec. These levels have no likely damage or annoyance impact according to the FTA manual and no additional vibration mitigation measures are required. (Noise Impact Study, p. 26) Potential vibration impacts are less than significant.

c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 45 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

13c. Response: (Source: Figure N-9 – March ARB Noise Contour, Figure N-10 – Noise/Land Use Noise Compatibility Criteria, RCALUP, March Air Reserve Base/March inland Port Comprehensive Land Use Plan (1999), Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study for March Air Reserve Base (August 2005) )

Less than Significant Impact. The nearest airport is the March Air Reserve Base, located approximately 3.27 miles southeast of the proposed Project site. Riverside Municipal Airport is located approximately 6.7 miles northwest of the Project site. The proposed Project is located within Zone C2 of the March Air Reserve Base Airport Land Use Compatibility (MARB ALUC) Plan and as depicted on Figure PS-6B of the General Plan 2025. Zone C2 does not place any restrictions on the development of a car wash. The Project will not result in a n accumulation of excessive noise levels in conjunction with nearby airport-associated noises. The Project is anticipated to have less than significant impacts to its employees directly, indirectly and cumulatively from excessive airport noise.

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING.

Would the project:

a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

14a. Response: (Source: Project Description, General Plan 2025 Table LU-3 – Land Use Designations)

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial population growth not identified in the General Plan 2025. The proposed Project consist of the construction of a 3,648 SF automated car wash facility with 17 associated vacuum stalls. The proposed Project is located on a property in an urbanized area, zoned for office use, and surrounded by multifamily residential uses to the north and west, commercial uses to the south (across Alessandro Boulevard), and public facilities to the east (across Mission Grove Parkway).

As the proposed Project is not residential it would not direct ly induce population growth. The Project could indirectly induce population growth if it provided substantial employment opportunities that would not be filled by people already residing in the area, and therefore would induce people moving to the area. Co nstruction is anticipated to last approximately 10 months which would generate the demand for temporary construction jobs during this period . However, given the small size of the project (less than 1 acre), the short duration of construction, and the avail ability of labor in the southern California region, it is reasonable to assume that the construction of the Project will be completed by existing companies already doing business in the area with employees already residing in the area. Thus, construction -related growth inducement would not result from implementation of the proposed Project.

The long-term/operational employment opportunities anticipated to be generated by the proposed Project are relatively minor and anticipated to be within forecasts. Thus, long-term operations are not expected to indirectly induce substantial population growth. Potential impacts related to substantial growth inducement from the Project will be less than significant , directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

14b. Response: (Source: Project Description, Google Maps)

No Impact. The Project will not displace existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere because the proposed Project site is located on land that has no existing housing that will be removed or affected by the proposed Project. Therefore, there will be no impact on existing housing either directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 46 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

15. PUBLIC SERVICES.

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

a. Fire protection?
15a. Response: (Source: FPEIR Table 5.13 -B – Fire Station Locations, Table 5.13 -C – Riverside Fire Department Statistics and Ordinance 5948 § 1)

Less than Significant Impact. Fire protection services are provided by the City of Riverside Fire Departmen t (RFD). The proposed Project site is located approximately 2 miles from Station 9, Canyon Crest (6647 Alessandro Boulevard), 4 miles from Fire Station 13, Box Springs (490 Sycamore Canyon Boulevard) and approximately 3. 5 miles from Fire Station 14, Sycamore Canyon (725 Central Avenue). Per the City’s General Plan, the average time for an on-site response to fire calls in 5 minutes, 30 seconds. Given the Project site’s proximity to the nearest fire station, response time is anticipated to be within the City’s 5-minute response time average. The first arriving unit can advance the first line for fire control, initiating rescue, or providing basic life support for medical incidents. Additionally, the RFD policy states that units will be located and staffed such that an effective response force of 4 units with 12 personnel minimum shall be available to all areas of the City within a maximum of 10 minutes (total response time). The Project is not anticipated to necessitate the need for additional staffing.

The proposed Project development would pose a minor incremental impact on fire protection or emergency medical facilities and services as it would require services in the event of a fire or other medical emergency. However, the proposed uses of the Project site are not inherently high risk for causing fires, susceptible to fires, or dangerous, and would not be expected to put a high burden on these services. Any potential impacts to the provision of fire protection or emergency medical facilities and services from the Project will not be significant. Potential impacts will be offset by the payment of development impact fees as required by Chapter 16.52 of the Riverside Municipal Code (RMC) and from revenue generated for the City from property taxes. With the given Project design and two Fire Stations located within approximately 3 miles of the Project site, impacts on fire protection public services would be less than significant.

b. Police protection?
15b. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS -8 – Neighborhood Policing Centers, FPEIR Section 5.13 – Public Services)

Less than Significant Impact. The Riverside Police Department (RPD) provides police protection services to the City and the Project site. The closest RPD station is the Orange Station, located at 4102 Orange Street , approximately 7 .1 miles northwest of the Project site. The Project site is located in an urbanized area served by the RPD. The City has reconsidered the RPD’s centralized form of organization, and the RPD has implemented a decentralized, Neighborhood Policing Center model in an effort to provide more equitable and responsive services across the current and future City. Additionally, The RPD does not use a formula for calculating the number of officers per capita. Instead, staffing for the Department is based on the business and residential growth and evaluated on a project-by-project basis. RPD has recognized that it wants to decentralize its policing centers and provide “satellite” policing centers distributed throughout the City, thereby, putting police services closer to residents over a more widespread geographical area. Residential staffing is based on dwellings per development and business staffing is based on square footage of the business, type of business and type of police service required. T he proposed Project would not result in an incremental increase to population growth since the Project will have a relatively small commercial land use. The proposed Project would have less than significant impact on the demand for additional police facilities of services either directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

c. Schools?
PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 47 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

15c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Section 5.13 – Public Services, General Plan 2025 FPEIR Section

5.13 – Public Services Figure 5.13-2 – Riverside Unified School District Boundaries)

No Impact. The proposed Project site is located within the Riverside Unified School District (RUSD), which has 44 schools, including 30 elementary schools, 1 special education pre -school, 6 middle schools, 5 comprehensive high schools, 2 continuation high schools, and 1 adult alternative education school. The schools within the vicinity of the proposed Project area are as follows:
• Kennedy Elementary School (19125 Schoolhouse Lane; approximately 1.8 miles south of the proposed Project site) • William Howard Taft Elementary School (959 Mission Grove Parkway North; approximately 1.7 miles northwest of the proposed Project site)
• Earhart Middle School (20202 Aptos Street; approximately 2.9 miles south of the propose d Project site) • Martin Luther King High School (9301 Wood Road; approximately 3.2 miles south of the proposed Project site)

The proposed Project is a non -residential use that would not involve the addition of any housing units that would directly increase the numbers of school age children within the RUSD. It is anticipated that the proposed Project’s employment opportunities, which would be relatively few due to the nature of the proposed Project, would be filled by residents that reside in the area already, and therefore would not indirectly induce population growth, including for school -aged children.

Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impacts on the demand for school facilities or services either directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

d. Parks?
15d. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PR-1 – Parks, Open Spaces and Trails, City of Riverside Municipal Code Chapter 16.60 – Local Park Development Fee Required )

Less than Significant Impact. The closest parks in proximity to the proposed Project site are the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park (approximately 1 mile east via the Barton Street trailhead entrance), Taft Park (approximately 1.1 miles northwest), Castleview Park (approximately 2.2 miles northwest), and Orange Terrace Community Park (approximately 2.5 miles southeast).

The Project is a non-residential use that would not involve the addition of any housing units that would directly increase the population and associated use of existing park facilities. It is anticipated that the proposed Project’s employment opportunities would be filled by residents that reside in the area already, and therefore the proposed P roject would not indirectly induce population growth or an associated increase in use of existing park facilities.

With payment of Park Development Impact Fees (local, aquatic, regional/reserve, and trail fees) per Title 16, Chapter 16.60 of the Municipal Code , the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts on the demand for additional park facilities or services either directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

e. Other public facilities?
15e. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure p. 5.13-16, GP 2025 FPEIR p. 5.13-19)

No Impact. The proposed Project does not include a residential component and would not directly increase population growth or an associated increase in the use of existing library facilities or community centers.

• Libraries
The City of Riverside Public Library (RPL) system provides over 600,000 books and other library materials (GP 2025 FPEIR p. 5.13 -16). The Main Library is located in the City’s Downtown Neighborhood at 3581 Mission Inn Avenue and there are eight other branches located throughout the City. The nearest branch to the Project site is Orange Terrace Branch, located at 20010 -B Orange Terrace Parkway, approximately 2 .5 miles southeast of the site. The Orange Terrace Branch, which opened in 2008, encompasses 13,000 square feet and is adjacent to the Orange Terrace Community Center. This branch offers a wide variety of books, movies, CDs and audio books for all ages as well as PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 48 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

38 public computers and free wireless internet access. The meeting room seats 45 persons, and a quiet study room is available at the branch.

• Community Centers
The City operates 9 community centers, 4 senior citizen centers, and 2 service centers throughout the City. The centers offer a wide range of services that include computer training, English as a second language classes, fitness and welln ess programs, early childhood programs, aquatics, social recreation programs, specialty classes, sports programs, field trips, meeting spaces, and a variety of cultural and holiday activities. (GP 2025 FPEIR p. 5.13- 19) The nearest community center to the Project site is the Stratton Center at Bordwell Park, located at 2008 Martin Luther King Boulevard, approximately 5. 2 miles to the northwest. The approximately 9,617- square-foot Stratton Center includes a variety of classes including classes for senior citizens.

It is anticipated that the proposed Project’s employment opportunities would be filled by residents that reside in the area already, and therefore the proposed Project would not indirectly induce population growth or an associated increased use of library facilities or community centers. Thus, there would be no impacts from the Project on the demand for additional public facilities or services, including libraries and community centers, either directly, indirectly, or cumulatively .

16. RECREATION.
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

16a. Response: (Source: Project Description, General Plan 2025 PEIR Recreation Figure 5.14 -1 – Parks and Recreational Facilities and Figure 5.14-2 Trails Map)

No Impact. The construction of the new 3,648 SF car wash facility is planned for commercial use and would not result in substantial population growth that would in turn have a significant increase in the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated .

No impacts would occur.

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

16b. Response: (Source: Project Description, General Plan 2025 PEIR Recreation Figure 5.14-1 – Parks and Recreational Facilities and Figure 5.14-2 Trails Map)

No Impact. The Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, the Project will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment related to this resource. No impacts would occur.

17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project result in:

a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?

17a. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 Figure CCM -4 – Master Plan of Roadways, FPEIR Figure 5.15 -4 – Volume to Capacity Ratio and Level of Service (Typical 2025), Project Specific Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads dated August 3, 2021 (Appendix H), and Office of Planning and Research https://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/sb-743/faq.html#general-plans-with- los)

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 49 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

Less than Significant Impact. The information in this section is based on the analysis presented in the project specific Traffic Analysis (TA). The study area for the proposed Project consists of the following intersections: (1) Driveway 1 & Alessandro Boulevard (future intersection); (2) Mission Grove P arkway & Residential Driveway; (3) Mission Grove Parkway & Driveway 2 (future intersection); and (4) Mission Grove Parkway & Alessandro Boulevard. All the intersections within the study area are in the City of Riverside. The proposed Project is estimated to generate a total of 776 actual trip- ends per day with 78 PM peak hour trips. AM peak hour rates are not available for this use as they are anticipated to be nominal. To accommodate site- access the proposed Project would install a stop control on the southbound and eastbound approach and construct a right turn lane (Project Driveway). Alessandro Boulevard is an east-west oriented roadway located on the Project’s southern boundary. According to the City of Riverside General Plan, Alessandro Boulevard is currently built out to its ultimate roadway half-section. As such, there are no additional roadway improvement recommendations. However, the proposed Project would include curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements to accommodate site access along the Project’s frontage for Driveway 1 consistent with the City’s standards. Mission Grove Parkway is a north- south oriented roadway located on the Project’s eastern boundary. Similarly, a ccording to the City of Riverside General Plan, Mission Grove Parkway is currently built out to its ultimate roadway half -section. As such, there are no additional roadway improvement recommendations. However, the proposed Project would include curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements to accommodate site access along the Project’s frontage for Driveway 2 consistent with the City’s standards.

The City of Riverside General Plan Circulation and Community Mobility Element includes standards for level of service (LOS). As such, this traffic analysis contained herein focuses on LOS analysis for the study intersections under the following scenarios: Existing Levels of Service, Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (2022) Conditions, Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (2022) Conditions, in order to determined consistency or a deficiency for goals and policies within the Circulation and Community Mobility Element.

Intersection LOS Existing Conditions Summary
Table 7 below shows the Existing (2021) Conditions for the intersections analyzed for the proposed Project. All study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours under Existing (2021) traffic conditions.

Table 7: Intersection Analysis for Existing (2021) Conditions

Intersection LOS Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (2022) Conditions Table 8 below shows the Existing plus Ambient Growth and the Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (2022) Conditions for the intersections analyzed for the proposed Project. All study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours with the addition of Project traffic under Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (2022) traffic conditions.

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 50 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

Table 8: Intersection Analysis for the Existing plus Ambient Growth and the Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (2022)

Intersection LOS Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (2022) Conditions Table 9 below shows the Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Cumulative and the Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (2022) Conditions for the intersections analyzed for the proposed Project. All study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours with the addition of Project traffic under Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (2022) traffic conditions.

Table 9: Intersection Analysis for Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Cumulative and the Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project plus Cumulative (2022) Conditions

It should be noted this Initial Study was prepared while the State and City were transitioning from LOS to VMT as a CEQA impact. While this analysis includes LOS impacts, the Office of Planning and Research confirms that auto delay, on its own, is no longer an environmental impact under CEQA. By including a LOS analysis, this Initial Study goes above and beyond CEQA requirements when analyzing transportation related deficiencies.

Additionally, the Office of Planning and Research states, “Even if a General Plan contains a LOS standard and a project is found to exceed that standard, that conflict should not be analyzed under CEQA. CEQA is focused on planning conflicts that lead to environmental impacts. (The Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey (2017) 14 Cal.App.5t h 883; see, e.g., Appendix G, IX(b) [asking whether the project will “Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?”].) Auto delay, on its own, is no longer an environmental impact under CEQA.”

Overall, the proposed Project would not degrade the LOS of the study intersections when implemented. The internal circulation system on the Project site will be developed to be consistent with City of Riverside and Riverside Fire Department roadway width requirements as part of the conditions of approval of the Project. Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the c irculation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 51 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

17b. Response: (Source: Project Description, Project Specific Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads dated August 3, 2021 (Appendix H), and City of Riverside adopted VMT analysis guidelines in July 2020)

Less than Significant Impact. Based on the Applicant’s coordination with City staff and the City’s VMT analysis guidelines for development projects, the proposed Project is screened from a project -level assessment. The proposed Project would be a local-serving car wash and would have a building size that is less than 50,000 square feet. The proposed Project would not conflict and would not be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Impacts would be less than significant directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.

c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

17c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-6B – Airport Safety Zones and Influence Areas, and March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port Comprehensive Land Use Plan , Airport Land Use Commission Development Review, May 13, 2021).

Less than Significant Impact. The nearest airport to the Project site is the March Air Reserve Base, located approximately

3.27 miles southeast of the site. Riverside Municipal Airport is located approximately 6.7 miles northwest of the Project site.

The proposed Project is located within Zone C2 of the March Ai r Reserve Base Airport Land Use Compatibility (MARB ALUC) Plan and as depicted on Figure PS -6B of the General Plan 2025. Zone C2 does not place any restrictions on the development of a car wash. Further, the Airport Land Use Commission Riverside County conducted an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Development Review of the proposed Project, dated May 13, 2021, and found it to be consistent with the 2014 MARB ALUC Plan, subject to seven standard conditions, which will be City required conditions of approval. With compliance with these standard conditions of approval, the Project will not conflict with the MARB ALUC Plan or result in a safety hazard. The Project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns and potential impacts related to safety risks are less than significant impacts directly, indirectly and cumulatively.

d. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

17d. Response: ( Source: General Plan 2025 Circulation and Community Mobility Element, Project Site Plan, and Project Description)

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would be served by existing, improved streets, Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway. According to the City of Riverside General Plan, Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway are currently built out to their ultimate roadway half -sections. As such, there are no additional roadway improvement recommendations. However, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements would be part of the proposed Project to accommodate site access along the Project’s frontage for Driveway 1 at Alessandro Boulevard and Driveway 2 at Mission Grove Parkway, consistent with the City’s standards. The proposed Project would not cause any incompatible use or additional or any hazards to the surrounding area or general public. The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on increasing hazards through design or incompatible uses either d irectly, indirectly or cumulatively.

e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
17e. Response: (Source: California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual, Municipal Code, and Fire Code, Project Description and Site Plan)

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would be served by existing, fully improved streets, Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway. The proposed Project’s internal drive aisles would be designed to meet the Public Works and Fire Departments’ specifications. No street closures are required during the Project’s construction. For these PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 52 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

reasons, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in inadequate emergency access and potential impacts are less than significant impact on increasing hazards through design or incompatible uses either directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or

18a. Response: (Source: AB52 Consultation and Project Description)

No Impact. The California Register of Historical Resources criteria for designation are as follows; 1) the resource(s) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history of the cultural heritage of California of the United States; 2) the resource(s) is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history; 3) the resource(s) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; and 4) the resource(s) has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. According to the PRC Se ction 5020.1(k), a “local register of historical resources” means a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution. The proposed Projec t is a modern development and is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Furthermore, the proposed Project is not listed as a City of Riverside historical resource. No impacts (direct, indirect, or cumulative) are anticipated in this regard.

b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.

18b. Response: (Source: AB52 Consultation and Project Description) Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation In corporated. Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014 (i.e., AB 5 2), requires Lead Agencies evaluate project’s potential to impact “tribal cultural resources.” Such resources include “[s]ites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe that are eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources.” AB 52 also gives Lead Agencies the discretion to determine, supported by substantial evidence, whether a resource qualifies as a “tribal cultural resource.” The proposed Project site is highly disturbed with existing structures from a previous development for an AT&T office and thus, it is unlikely any resources would be unearthed during construction activities.

Per AB 52 (specifically PRC 21080.3.1), Native American consultation is required upon request by a California Native American tribe that has previously requested that the City provide it with notice of such projects. Pursuant to provisions of AB 52, the City contacted the following Native American Tribes:
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians;
• Cahuilla Band of Indians;
• Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation;
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians;
• Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians;
PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 53 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

• Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians;
• Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe (San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians); • San Manuel Band of Mission Indians; and
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians.

The following California Native American tribe requested consultation with the City of Riverside pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.3.1:

Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
SB 18 consultation notices were also sent out on July 22, 2021, there were no tribes that requested consultation in accordance with the SB 18 guidelines. Consistent with the Cultural Resources response 5b. above, implementation of mitigation measure MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4 would further ensure the proposed Project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of an archaeological or tribal resource. I mpacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1: Prior to grading permit issuance, if there are any changes to project site design and/or proposed grades, the Applicant and the City shall contact consulting tribes to provide an electronic copy of the revised plans for review. Additional consultation shall occur between the City, developer/applicant, and consulting tribes to discuss any proposed changes and review any new impacts and/or potential avoidance/preservation of the cultural resources on the project site. The City an d the developer/applicant shall make all attempts to avoid and/or preserve in place as many cultural and paleontological resources as possible that are located on the project site if the site design and/or proposed grades should be revised. In the event of inadvertent discoveries of archaeological resources, work shall temporarily halt until agreements are executed with consulting tribe, to provide tribal monitoring for ground disturbing activities.

MM CUL-2: Archaeological and Paleontological Monitoring: At least 30 days prior to application for a grading permit and before any grading, excavation and/or ground disturbing activities take place, the developer/applicant shall retain a Secretary of Interior Standards qualified archaeological monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources.

1. The project archaeologist, in consultation with consulting tribes, the Developer, and the City, shall develop an Archaeological Monitoring Plan to address the details, timing, and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. Details in the plan shall include:
a. Project grading and development scheduling;
b. The development of a rotating or simultaneous schedule in coordination with the developer/applicant and the project archaeologist for designated Native American Tribal Monitors from the consulting tribes during grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities on the site, including the scheduling, safety requirements, duties, scope of work, and Native American Tribal Monitors’ authority to stop and redirect grading activities in coordination with all project archaeologists;
c. The protocols and stipulations that the Applicant, tribes, and project archaeologist/paleontologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits, or nonrenewable paleontological resources that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation; d. Treatment and final disposition of any cultural and paleontological resources, sacred sites, and human remains if discovered on the project site; and
e. The scheduling and timing of the Cultural Sensitivity Training notes in mitigation measure MM CUL -4.

MM CUL-3 Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Resources : In the event that Native American cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of grading for the proposed Project, the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

2. Temporary Curation and Storage: During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location on site or at the offices of the project archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the project site will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversight of the process; and PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 54 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

3. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and non-human remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The landowner shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Riverside Community and Economic Development Department with evidence of same:
a. Accommodate the process for on-site reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the futur e reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing and basic recordation have been compl eted. b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository within Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore will be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further stud y. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility within Riverside County, to be accompanied by payment of the necessary fees for permanent curation;
c. If more than one Native American tribe or band is involved with the project and cannot come to a consensus as to the disposition of cultural materials, they shall be curated at the Western Science Center or Museum of Riverside by default; and
At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting monitoring activities conducted by the project archaeologist and Native American Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This repor t shall document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources. This report shall be submitted to the City of Riverside, Eastern Information Center, and consulting tribes.

MM CUL-4: Cultural Sensitivity Training: The Secretary of Interior Standards County certified archaeologist and Native American monitors shall attend the pre -grading meeting with the developer/permit holder’s contractors to provide Cultural Sensitivity Training for all construction personnel. This shall include the procedures to be followed during ground disturbance in sensitive areas and protocols that apply in the event that unanticipated resources are discovered. Only construction personnel who have received this training can conduct construction and disturbance activities in sensitive areas. A sign -in sheet for attendees of this training shall be included in the Phase IV Monitoring Report.

19. UTILITIES AND SYSTEM SERVICES.

Would the project:

a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

19a. Response: (Source: WMWD 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Project Description, and G eneral Plan 2025

5.16-I – Projected Water Demand for WMWD)

Less than Significant Impact. The City’s Urban Water Management Plan must be updated every five years to include the most recent population trends. The proposed Project site is currently developed with a former AT&T service facility office that includes two existing buildings that are currently vacant. Because of the proposed Project site’s existing developed condition, the proposed Project site is provided with stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication infrastructure. The Project site would continue to be served domestic w ater by the WMWD and sewer services by the City of Riverside Public Works Department. As shown on Figure 5.16-2, Drainage Facilities and Figure 5.16-4, Water Facilities of the GP 2025, water line infrastructure is provided along Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway and drainage infrastructure is provided along Alessandro Boulevard. No relocation or construction of expanded utilities are needed for the proposed Project. Therefore, this Project was found to have a less than significa nt impact on these utilities either directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 55 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

19b. Response: (Source: WMWD 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Project Description, and General Plan 2025

5.16-I – Projected Water Demand for WMWD)

Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 19(a) above. WMWD updated its Urban Water Management Plan in June 2021 consisting of water supply and demand to the year 2045. WMWD evaluates the reliability of its supplies considering short and long-term variations in weather and climate patterns, including the impacts of climate change. WMWD evaluated supply reliability during a single dry year, multiple dry years, and a multiple year drought that could potentially occur within the next five years (2021- 2025). In all cases, W MWD’s supplies were sufficient to meet de mand without any supply shortages. As outlined in the Project description, the majority of water used in car washing is reclaimed and is stored in on - site storage tanks and recycled for subsequent washes. Water consumed and discharged to the City’s wastewater transmission system (consumptive water use) would average 12 to 15 gallons per vehicle. Consumptive water use would range from approximately 3,900 gallons per day to approximately 4,500 gallons per day on Fridays and Saturdays when the facility would be busier. Sufficient water supplies are available to serve existing and projected future water demand under normal, dry and multiple-dry conditions. The Project will not exceed expected water supplies. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact resulting in the insufficient water supplies either directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

19c. Response: (Source: FPEIR Figure 5.16-5 - Sewer Service Areas, Figure 5.16-6 -Sewer Infrastructure, Table 5.16- K - Estimated Future Wastewater Generation for the City of Riverside’s Sewer Service Area)

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The proposed Project would fully address stormwater runoff such that runoff water will not exceed the capacity of on-or-off-site drainage facilities through the implementation of BMPs. As discussed in Threshold 10(a) and 10(c) above, the proposed on- site retention basin, infiltration and operational BMPs would reduce impacts to less than significant for stormwater runoff. Stormwater generated from paved and developed areas of the site would flow within internal drives from north and west to the southeast corner of the site where stormwater would be collected. Collected stormwater would be discharged to an existing drain inlet and then transmitted to the unnamed drainage south of the site using an existing outfall. Water within the on-site drainage flows east to an existing inlet to the City’s stormwater drainage network at Mission Grove Parkway. The proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan 2025 Typical Growth Scenario where future wastewater generation was determined to be adequate. Further, the current Wastewater Treatment Master Plan anticipates and provides for this type of Project which is consistent and permitted in the Project site. Therefore, less than significant impacts to wastewater treatment directly, indirectly or cumulatively would occur.

d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastru cture, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

19d. Response: ( Source: GP 2025 FPEIR Table 5.16 -A – Existing Landfills and Table 5.16 -M – Estimated Future Solid Waste Generation from the Planning Area)

No Impact. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan 2025 Typical Build -out Project level where future landfill capacity was determined to be adequate (see Tables 5.16 -A and 5.16-M of the General Plan 2025 Final PEIR). The General Plan notes that the remaining total landfill capacity is of approximately 56.57 million tons over the next 16 years (until Year 2025) assumes that no expansion of existing landfills (or development of new landfills) will occur. Per the California Green Building Code, a minimum of 50 percent of debris is required to be diverted to a material recycling facility, thus reducing the input of solid waste from the Project at local landfills. Therefore, no impact to landfill capacity will occur directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

19e. Response: (Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board 2002 Landfill Facility Compliance Study) PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 56 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

No Impact. The California Integrated Waste Management Act under the Public Resource Code requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50% of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. The City is currently achieving a 60% diversion rate, well above State requirements. In addition, the California Green Building Code requires all developments to divert 50% of non- hazardous construction and demolition debris for all projects and 100% of excavated soil and land clea ring debris for all non- residential projects beginning January 1, 2011. The proposed Project must comply with the City’s waste disposal requirements as well as the California Green Building Code and as such would not conflict with any Federal, State, or lo cal regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, no impacts related to solid waste statutes will occur directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

20a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Public Safety Element Figure PS-7 – Fire Hazard Areas, General Plan 2025 Figure PS 8.1 Evacuation Routes, General Plan 2025 FPEIR Section 5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Project Site Plan, Project Description)

Less than Significant Impact. Per a review of Figure PS -7 – Fire Hazard Areas (GP 2025 Public Safety Element, Figure PS-7), the entirety of the proposed Project site is not located within area or land classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ).

The proposed Project site is located at the northwest corner of Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway, with the I-215 freeway located approximately 2.1 miles east of the site. Per GP 2025 Public Safety Element, Figure PS-8.1 Evacuation Routes, Alessandro Boulevard is designated as an arterial evacuation route and the I-215 as a freeway evacuation route. The proposed Project site is therefore located adjacent to and in close proximity to designated evacuation routes. As outlined in Response 17.a above, a ccording to the City of Riverside General Plan, Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway are currently built out to their ultimate roadway half -sections. As such, there are no additional roadway improvement s for the Project to make. However, the proposed Project would include curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements to accommodate site access along the Project’s frontage for a driveway along each consistent with the City’s standards.

Construction of the Project does not require any temporary lane closures of Alessandro Boulevard or Mission Grove Parkway and would not affect these evacuation routes.

Per GP 2025 Section 5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the City’s Emergency Management Office (EMO) within the Riverside Fire Department (RFD) coordinates emergency response, disaster preparedness, and disaster recovery by activating the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS; GP 2025 pp. 5.7-12 – 13). The EMO has additionally developed an Emergency Operations Plan. Per RFD, in the e vent of a disaster, a “shelter -in-place” order would be enacted with the intention of protecting public safety by encouraging people to remain indoors, which would aid in keeping unnecessary traffic off of roads and allow emergency response vehicles to respond to disasters and/or facilitate an orderly evacuation if necessary.

In certain circumstances, local officials may direct people to go to a community shelter for safety purposes (GP 2025 pp. 5.7- 35). Any e mergency response and evacuation procedures at the Project site would be coordinated through the City in coordination with the police and RFD. The proposed Project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan and would comply with necessary procedures. The proposed Project’s surrounding roadways would continue to provide emergency access through the proposed Project area and to surrounding properties during construction and operation of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not substantially impair an adopt ed emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; impacts would be less than significant directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.

b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

20b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Public Safety Element Figure PS -7 – Fire Hazard Areas, General Plan 2025 FPEIR Section 5.3 – Air Quality )
PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 57 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

Less than Significant Impact. As mentioned in response 20a above, the entirety of the proposed Project site is not located within a VHFHSZ . The closest area identified as a VHFHSZ is located approximately 1.25 miles northwest of the site, between Canyon Crest Drive and Via Vista Drive (GP 2025 Public Safety Element Figure PS -7 – Fire Hazard Areas). The proposed Project site is bordered by Alessandro Boulevard to the south, Mission Grove Parkway to the east, and residential uses to the north and west.

Per GP 2025 FPEIR Section 5.3 – Air Quality, the City lies within the South Coast Air Basin, and the interaction of land (offshore) and sea (onshore) breezes controls local wind patterns in the area. Daytime winds typically flow from the coast to inland areas, while the pattern typically reverses in the evening, flowing inland to the ocean (FPEIR pp. 5.3-3 – 5.3-4). Thus, the prevailing daytime winds at the Project site are from west to east while nighttime winds are from east to west.

A fire will generally spread uphill due to the preheating of the fuel and the up -slope draft unless the genera l wind is strong enough to overcome these two forces. The flames are closer to the fuel on the uphill side and they receive more radiant heat.

This results in more preheating and faster igniting of the fuel. The heated air rises along the slope increasing the draft that further increases the rate of spread. As a result of winds blowing up-slope, more convective heat also reaches the fuel in front of the fire and it is pre-heated more quickly to the ignition temperature. The opposite is true at night. When the slope becomes shaded, the surface generally loses heat rapidly and becomes cool. The air adjacent to the surface also cools and becomes denser thus heavier and it can begin to flow down- slope. As earlier described, the proposed Project site is developed and bordered by paved roads and residential uses . The site is not surrounded by steep slopes that would increase the rate a potential fire would spread. As such, the proposed Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope.

As earlier described, the entirety of the proposed Project site is not located within a VHFHSZ and the closest area identified as a VHFHSZ is located approximately 1.25 miles northwest of the site, between Canyon Crest Drive and Via Vista Drive (GP 2025 Public Safety Element F igure PS-7 – Fire Hazard Areas). The risk for the proposed Project site to exacerbate wildfire risks for a wildfire spreading to or from the proposed Project site to these roadways that border the VHFHSZ would be relatively unlikely as there is generally little wildfire fuel on roadways. As such, it is not anticipated that the proposed Project site would exacerbate wildfire risks for a wildfire spreading to or from the proposed Project site from the nearest VHFSZ. Further, proposed Project structures would be required to comply with the California Fire Code (CFC) with regard to emergency fire access and use of building materials that would limit the spread of wildfire to the greatest extent possibl e, and all proposed construction activities would be subject to compliance with all applicable State and local regulations in place to reduce risk of construction- related fire, such as installation of temporary construction fencing to restrict site access and maintenance of a clean construction site. Compliance with and implementation of these fire safety measures would reduce the potential spread of a wildfire from the proposed Project site to areas outside the proposed Project site boundary, which would also reduce the potential of exacerbating wildfire risks.

In addition, proposed Project would be constructed in accordance with the CFC as well as the California Building Code (CBC) and would be compliant with the GP 2025. The proposed Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, or other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, nor would the proposed Project expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Impacts would be less than significant directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.

c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

20c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Public Safety Element Figure 8.1 – Fire Hazard Areas)

Less than Significant Impact. As described under response 20a above, the proposed Project site is located along Alessandro Boulevard to the south and Mission Grove Parkway to the east, with the I-215 freeway located approximately 2.1 miles east of the site. The proposed Project site is developed, with existing buildings/structures located on the site that would be demolished to allow for the development/construction of the proposed Project. Thus, as the site had been previously developed to allow for and service existing structures, the proposed Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure, such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities that could PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 58 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

exacerbate fire risks or result in temporary or ongoing impact s to the environment. The proposed Project site is located immediately adjacent to paved roads on both the south and east and would be serviced by existing utilities. Therefore, potential impacts associated with requiring the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment would be less than significant directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.

d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

20d. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Public Safety Element Figure PS-4 – Flood Hazard Areas)

Less than Significant Impact. Per Figure PS- 4 – Flood Hazard Areas (GP 2025 Public Safety Element Figure PS -4), the proposed Project site is not located within or near an identified Flood Hazard Area. Additionally, as previously described, the proposed Project site is developed and bordered by paved roads and residential uses. The site i s not located on a steep slope nor is the site surrounded by steep slopes that would increase the risk of downslope or downstream flooding or landslides because of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. The proposed Project would therefore not expose people or structures to significant risks resulting from these factors. Impacts would be less than significant directly, indirectly, and cumulatively.

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or an endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

21a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 – Figure OS-6 – Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Core Reserve and Other Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP), Figure OS -7 – MSHCP Cores and Linkages, Figure OS -8 – MSHCP Cell Areas, General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.4 -4 - MSHCP Criteria Cells and Subunit Areas, Figure 5.4-6 – MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area , Figure 5.4-7 – MSHCP Criteria Area Species Survey Area, Figure 5.4-8 – MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area, MSHCP Section 6.1.2 - Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, and FPEIR Figure 5.5 -1 - Archaeological Sensitivity)

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed P roject would remodel and expand existing buildings to be used for church operations. As described above, the proposed P roject would result in several potentially significant project‐level impacts including biological resources and cultural resources. The P roject site does not contain any known historical resources and does not support habitat for any special ‐status animals or plant communities. Furthermore, the site does not contain riparian habitat. However, development of the proposed P roject would require ground disturbance, which would have the potential to uncover cultural resources; thus, with implementation of mitigation measure MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact to historical and archaeological resources. In addition, construction of the proposed Project could result in the disturbance of nesting birds from ground disturbing activities; thus, with implementation of m itigation measures MM BIO -1 the p roposed P roject would have a less than significant impact on biological resources. The proposed Project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or an endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 59 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cum ulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

21b. Response: ( Source: FPEIR Section 6 – Long-Term Effects/ Cumulative Impacts for the General Plan 2025 Program)

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed P roject would contribute minimally to cumulative development impacts within the region, like other future developments. The proposed Project would create several potentially significant impacts relating to biological and cultural resources . However, the proposed Project would adequately mitigate all potential impacts to less than significant levels with implementation of m itigation measures, thereby also reducing the project’s cumulative impacts. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

21c. Response: (Source: FPEIR Section 5 – Environmental Impact Analysis for the General Plan 2025 Program)

Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed Project is not anticipated to result in significant project‐ level impacts on human beings. As outlined in the Noise response 13a. above, the proposed Project required incorporation of various design features in order to attenuate (reduce) noise generated from the proposed Project from the car wash tunnel and equipment such as driers, to adjacent residential uses, and not exceed existing ambient levels.

Construction noise is considered a short-term impact and would be considered significant if construction activities are taken outside the allowable times as described in the City’s Municipal Code. The proposed Project construction would occur during the City’s permissible hours per the Municipal Code. Construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise level above the existing wi thin the project vicinity however the City has an exemption for construction that occurs within the allowable daytime hours of 7 AM to 10 PM. With compliance with the allowable times as described in the City’s Municipal Code, potential noise impacts from c onstruction are considered less than significant . However, noise reduction measures are outlined as mitigation measures MM NOI -1 through MM NOI-5, to further reduce construction noise to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296 (1988); Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal.App.3d 1337 (1990).

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 60 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required/
Monitoring Method
Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring
Party/Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Biological Resources
MM BIO-1
If construction shall occur within the nesting bird
breeding season (February 1 st through August
31st), prior to on- site vegetation clearance, the
Project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist
to conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey
in accordance with the following:
• The survey shall be conducted no
more than three days prior to the
initiation of clearance/construction
work.
• If pre-construction surveys indicate that
bird nests are not present or are inactive,
or if potential nesting vegetation is
unoccupied, no further measures are
required.
• If active nests of birds that are protected
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) or California Fish and Game
Code (CFGC) are found during the
surveys, the biologist shall delineate an
appropriate buffer zone around the ne st.

The size of the buffer shall be determined
by the biologist and shall be based on the
nesting species, its sensitivity to
disturbance, expected types of
disturbance, and location in relation to
the construction activities. These buffers
are typically 300 feet from nests of non-
listed species and 500 feet from the nests
of raptor and listed species. Any active
nests observed shall be mapped on an
aerial photograph and with the bird
species identification.

Conduct pre-
construction nesting bird
survey and submit to the
City (Planning
Division).

If negative findings, no
further action is
required.

Prior to issuance of
grading permit for any
ground disturbance that
would start any time
between February 1st and
August 31st
Community & Economic
Development Department -
Planning Division

Project Applicant’s Qualified
Biologist

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 61 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required/
Monitoring Method
Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring
Party/Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
• Only construction activities (if any) that
have been approved by a Biological
Monitor shall take place within the buffer
zone until the nest is vacated. The
biologist shall serve as Construction
Monitor when construction activities take
place near active nest areas to ensure no in
advertent impacts on these nests occur.
• Results of the pre -construction nesting
bird survey and any subsequent
monitoring shall be provided to the
Property Owner/Developer and the City.

The monitoring report shall summarize
the results of the nest monitoring, describe
construction restrictions currently in
place, and confirm that construction
activities can proceed within the buffer
area without jeopardizing the survival of
the young birds.

Cultural Resources
MM CUL-1
Prior to grading permit issuance, if there are any
changes to project site design and/or proposed grades,
the Applicant and the City shall contact consulting
tribes to provide an electronic copy of the revised
plans for review. Additional consultation shall occur
between the City, developer/applicant, and consulting
tribes to discuss any proposed changes and review any
new impacts and/or potential avoidance/preservation
of the cultural resources on the project site. The City and the developer/ applicant shall make all attempts to avoid and/or preserve in place as many cultural
resources and paleontological resources as possible
that are located on the project site if the site design and/or proposed grades should be revised. In the event
of inadvertent discoveries of archaeological resources, work shall temporarily halt until agreements are
executed with consulting tribe, to provide tribal
Provide copy of
consultation logs
showing Applicant’s
effort to contact
interested tribes and the
outcome of any such
consultations.

Halt any work in the
event of inadvertent
discoveries of
archaeological
resources.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits.

Community & Economic
Development Department -
Planning Division

Historic Preservation
Officer

Project Developer/ Applicant

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 62 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

MM CUL-2: Archaeological and Paleontological Monitoring At least 30 days prior to application for a grading
permit and before any grading, excavation and/or
ground disturbing activities take place, the
developer/applicant shall retain a Secretary of
Interior Standards qualified archaeological
monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities
to identify any unknown archaeological resources.

Submit the
Archaeological
Monitoring Plan to the
City (Planning Division)
for review/approval.

Provide copy of
consultation logs
showing Applicant’s
effort to contact
interested tribes and
outcome of each
consultation.

At least 30 days prior to
application for a grading
permit and before any
ground disturbing
activities.

Community & Economic
Development Department -
Planning Division

Historic Preservation
Officer

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 63 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required/
Monitoring Method
Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring
Party/Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
coordination with all project
archaeologists;
c. The prot ocols and stipulations
that the Applicant, tribes, and
project
archaeologist/paleontologist
will follow in the event of
inadvertent cultural resources
discoveries, including any
newly discovered cultural
resource deposits, or
nonrenewable paleontological
resources that shall be subject to
a cultural resource evaluation.

d. Treatment and final disposition
of any archeological and cultural
and paleontological resources,
sacred sites, if discovered on the
project site; and
e. The scheduling and timing of the
Cultural Sensitivity Training
noted in mitigation measure
MM-CUL-4.

MM CUL-3: Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Resources In the event the Native American cultural resources
are inadvertently discovered during grading for this
project, the following procedures will be carried out
for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

Consulting tribe(s) will be allowed access
to the discovery, to assist with the
Provide the City evidence
that consulting tribes
have been notified within
24 hours of discovery

Submittal of report that
documents the finding
and disposition of any
Native American Cultural
Resources to the City

During grading activities Community & Economic
Development Department -
Planning Division

Historic Preservation
Officer

Consulting Tribe(s)

Construction
Contractor

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 64 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

2. Temporary Curation and Storage :

During the course of construction, all
discovered resources shall be temporarily
curated in a secure location on site or at
the offices of the project archaeologist.

The removal of any artifacts from the
project site will need to be thoroughly
inventoried with a tribal monit or from
each consulting tribe to oversee the
process; and

3. Treatment and Final Disposition: The
landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership
of all cultural resources, including sacred
items, burial goods, and all
archaeological artifacts and non -human
remains as part of the required mitigation
for impacts to cultural resources. The
Applicant shall relinquish the artifacts
through on or more of the following
methods and provide the City of
Riverside Community and Economic
Development Department with evidence
of same:
a. Accommodate the process for on-
site reburial of the discovered
items with the consulting Native
American tribes or bands. This
shall include measures and
provisions to protect the future
reburial area from any future
impacts. Reburial shall not occur
until all cataloging and basic
recordation have been completed;
If resources are found
and curated, provide a
copy of the curation
agreement to the City
Submittal of a Phase IV
Monitoring Report to the
City (Planning
Division).

Project Applicant
Property Owner
PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 65 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required/
Monitoring Method
Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring
Party/Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
b. A curation agreement with an
appropriate qualified repository
within Riverside County that
meets federal standards per 36
CFR Part 79 and therefore will be
professionally curated and made
available to other
archaeologists/researchers for
further study. The collections and
associated records shall be
transferred, incl uding title, to an
appropriate curation facility
within Riverside County, to be
accompanied by payment of the
fees necessary for permanent
curation;
c. If more than one Native
American tribe or band is
involved with the project and
cannot come to a consensus as to
the disposition of cultural
materials, they shall be curated at
the Western Science Center or
Museum of Riverside by default;
and
d. At the completion of grading,
excavation, and ground-
disturbing activities on the site, a
Phase IV Monitoring Report shall
be submitted to the City
documenting monitoring
activities conducted by the
project archaeologist and Native
Tribal Monitors within 60 days of
completion of grading. This
report shall document the impacts
to the known resources on the
PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 66 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required/
Monitoring Method
Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring
Party/Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
property; describe how each
mitigation measure was fulfilled;
document the type of cultural
resources recovered and the
disposition of such resources;
provide evidence of the required
cultural sensitivity training for
the construction staff held during
the required pre -grade meeting;
and, in a confidential appendix,
include the daily/weekly
monitoring notes from the
archaeologist. All reports
produced will be submitted to the
City of Riverside, Eastern
Information Center, and
consulting tribes.

MM CUL-4 Cultural Sensitivity Training
The Secretary of Interior Standards County certified
archaeologist and Native American monitors shall
attend the pre-grading meeting with the
developer/permit holder’s contractors to provide
Cultural Sensitivity Training for all construction
personnel. This shall include the procedures to be
followed during ground disturbance in sensitive areas
and protocols that apply in the e vent that
unanticipated resources are discovered. Only
construction personnel who have received this
training can conduct construction and disturbance
activities in sensitive areas. A sign -in sheet for
attendees of this training shall be included in the
Phase IV Monitoring Report.

Sign-in sheet from
Cultural Sensitivity
Training for all
construction personnel to
be provided to City and
included in the Phase IV
Monitoring Report
Prior to start of grading
activities.

Community & Economic
Development Department –
Planning Division

Qualified
Archaeologist

Consulting Tribe(s)

Noise
MM NOI-1
Construction shall occur during the permissible
hours as defined in section 7.35.01(B)(5) and
This mitigation measure
shall be added as a note
During all grading and
construction activities
Community &
Economic
Development

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 67 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required/
Monitoring Method
Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring
Party/Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments

7.35.020(G) of the Riverside Municipal Code
(RMC).
on the grading and
construction plans.

Department –
Building & Safety
Division

Public Works
Department

Construction Contractor
MM NOI-2
During construction, the contractor shall ensure all
construction equipment is equipped with appropriate
noise attenuating devices.

This mitigation measure
shall be added as a note
on the grading and
construction plans.

During all grading and
construction activities
Community & Economic
Development Department –
Building & Safety Division

Public Works
Department

Construction Contractor

MM NOI-3
The contractor shall locate equipment staging areas
that will create the greatest distance between
construction-related noise/vibration sources and
sensitive receptors nearest the project site , to the
greatest extent feasible, during all project
construction.

This mitigation measure
shall be added as a note
on the grading and
construction plans.

During all grading and
construction activities
Community & Economic
Development Department –
Building & Safety Division

Public Works
Department

Construction Contractor

MM NOI-4
Idling equipment shall be turned off when not in use. This mitigation measure shall be added as a note
on the grading and
construction plans.

During all grading and
construction activities
Community & Economic
Development Department –
Building & Safety Division

Public Works
Department

Construction

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Environmental Initial Study 68 PR-2021-001023
(GPA-RZ-CUP-DR-VR)

Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval
Action Required/
Monitoring Method
Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring
Party/Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Contractor

MM NOI-5
Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and
their loads are secured from rattling and banging.

This mitigation measure
shall be added as a note
on the grading and
construction plans.

During all grading and
construction activities
Construction Contractor

PR-2021-001023 (GPA, RZ, CUP, VR, DR), Exhibit 10 - Mitigated Negative Declaration

Riverside City CouncilJune 21, 2022

Riverside City Council
June 21, 2022