APPENDIX A.5
Initial Study
Environmental Initial Study 1 Case Number: PR-2021-000713 WARD: 6
Case Number: PR-2021-000713 (Conditional Use Permit, Minor Conditional Use Permit, Minor Conditional Use Permit, Design Review,)
1. Project Title: Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion Project
2. Hearing Date: TBD
3. Lead Agency: City of Riverside
Community & Economic Development Department
Planning Division
3900 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92522
4. Contact Person: Brian Norton
Phone Number: (951) 826-2308
5. Project Location:
The City of Riverside (City) is located in the northwestern portion of Riverside County. The City is bounded on the north by the Cities of Jurupa Valley and Grand Terrace and the unincorporated community of Highgrove, to the east by the City of Moreno Valley, to the south by the unincorporated community of Woodcrest, and to the west by the Cities of Corona and Norco.
The main project site is located at 10800 Magnolia Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 138-470-010) and is currently developed as the Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center (Medical Center). Up to two off-site areas will be utilized for temporary parking at 10821 Magnolia Avenue (Off-Site Area 1 APN 142-293- 028), and at11510 Magnolia Avenue (Off-Site Area 2, APN 132-020-033) (Figure 1, Regional and Vicinity Map) for the duration of the project.
1 The approximately 37.5-acre existing Medical Center is located within the La Sierra District of the Magnolia Avenue Specific Plan. The Medical Center is bounded by Magnolia Avenue, Park Sierra Drive and Polk Street while the nearest major cross street is La Sierra Avenue (Figure 2A, Proposed Hospital Expansion).
Regional access to the Project Site is provided via State Route 91 (SR-91) approximately one-quarter mile to the south. Local access is provided via Magnolia Avenue, Polk Street, and Park Sierra Drive.
6. Project Applicant/Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Kaiser Permanente
Skyler Denniston, National Director - Land Use & Entitlements National Facilities Services
393 E. Walnut Street, 4th Floor
Pasadena, California 91188
1 Figures commence on page 14
Draft Initial Study
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Environmental Initial Study 2 Case Number: PR-2021-000713
7. General Plan Designation and Zoning: The Project site located at 10800 Magnolia Avenue has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U) and is zoned CR-SP - Commercial Retail and Specific Plan (Magnolia Avenue) Overlay Zones. The off-site property located at 11510 Magnolia Avenue (Off-Site Area 2) has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use Village (MU-V) and is zoned R-1-7000-SP – Single Family Residential and Specific Plan (Magnolia Avenue) Overlay Zones and CG-SP – Commercial General and Specific Plan (Magnolia Avenue) Overlay Zones. The off-site property located at 10821 Magnolia Avenue (Off-Site Area 1) has a land use designation of Mixed Use Village (MU-V) and is zoned MU-V-SP - Mixed Use Village and Specific Plan (Magnolia Avenue) Overlay Zones.
8. Description of Project:
Kaiser Permanente is proposing the redevelopment of approximately 15.5 acres of the existing 37.5-acre Medical Center to expand acute care medical service facilities and ancillary uses. The expansion of the existing Medical Center is proposed to address the need for additional adult single occupancy and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) beds, increase the capacity of operating rooms and interventional radiology, improve parking, and increase functional efficiencies in key clinical services, including the emergency department.
The proposed Project consists of a new, approximately 180,474-square-foot, five-story hospital tower with 152 new beds for a total number of 359 beds upon Project completion, a new 115,526 square foot two-story diagnostic and treatment (D&T) building, a 5-story (6 decks),1,200-space aboveground parking structure, and upgrades to the existing central utility plant, including installation of a new emergency generator. The Project also includes ancillary features such as a new patient drop-off canopy, driveways, walkways, surface parking, landscaping, lighting, and signage.
During construction, the Project will develop and utilize two off-site areas for construction trailer and employee parking totaling approximately 6.31 acres. Project construction would occur over an approximate 4½ -year period in two major build phases: one for the parking structure and the other for the new hospital tower and D&T building.
Existing Conditions
The existing Medical Center is situated on approximately 37.5 acres and includes four main buildings located in the center of the site. The existing buildings are surrounded by surface parking lots and one parking structure to the north (see Figure 3, Existing Site Plan). The existing Medical Center contains approximately 509,881 square feet (SF) of impervious area.
The existing Medical Center is comprised of four Medical Office Buildings (MOB) located in the center of the site and surrounded by surface parking lots, and one parking structure to the north; refer to Table 1, Existing Building Dimensions. The existing facilities contain 226 hospital beds, including 51 single occupancy rooms, 78 double occupancy rooms, and 19 NICU rooms. The existing Medical Center contains emergency generators located within the screened service yard. In total, the existing Medical Center currently contains 2,556 parking stalls on-site (1,994 standard stalls, 377 compact, 169 (Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] compliant, and 16 van spaces). An existing parking structure is located in the northeast portion of the existing Medical Center campus; refer to Table 2, Existing Parking. There are a total of eight electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, two of which are ADA accessible. The existing site has one bicycle rack at the back of the existing employee parking lot.
Environmental Initial Study 3 Case Number: PR-2021-000713 Table 1, Existing Building Dimensions
Building Sq. Footage # of Floors Height Beds
Parking
Requirements
Roof Screen Multiplier Stalls
MOB 1 402,909 5 70'-10" 93'-6" 226 1 per Bed 226
1 per 180 SF 219
1 per 180 SF 174
MOB 2 220,000 5 70'-10" 93'-6" 0 1 per 180 SF 1,222
MOB 3 88,000 3 43'-0" N/A 0 1 per 180 SF 489
MOB 4 6,027 1 15'-0" N/A 0 1 per 180 SF 34
Total 716,936 2,364
Table 2, Existing Parking
Type # of Decks Height Parking Stalls
Structure 4 38'-6" Top of Parapet 700
Surface N/A N/A 1,856
Total 2,556
The existing Medical Center supports an operational staff of approximately 3,097 full-time employees and generates approximately 2,521 patient visitors per day.
The Medical Center is accessed through five existing driveways. There are two full-access driveways off of Park Sierra Drive, two full-access driveways from Polk Street, and one right-in and right-out driveway off of Magnolia Avenue.
Both off-site areas are located on vacant disturbed land enclosed by wire and brick fencing. (See Figure 2B, Proposed Temporary Off-Site Parking Areas) Off-Site Area 1 is dominated by shrub vegetation. Off-Site Area 2 includes shrub vegetation and trees with remnants of concrete debris. Table 3, Membership Trip Characteristics presents the average distances and drive times Kaiser Permanente (KP) members in the City of Riverside and western Riverside County experience to drive to the nearest KP facility. 2 Table 3, Membership Trip Characteristics
City of Riverside
Average Distance to Nearest KP Facility 4.8 miles
Average Drive Time to Nearest KP Facility 9.9 minutes
County of Riverside (excluding Coachella Valley)
Average Distance to Nearest KP Facility 6.8 miles
Average Drive Time to Nearest KP Facility 12 minutes
Additional Membership Information
23% of members in Riverside County (excluding Coachella Valley) live in the City of Riverside 10% of members in Southern California live in Riverside County (excluding Coachella Valley) Coachella Valley accounts for 1% of SoCal membership and 8% of Riverside County membership Proposed Project Characteristics
2 Members are Kaiser Permanente patients and customers of Kaiser Permanente services and facilities.
Environmental Initial Study 4 Case Number: PR-2021-000713 A description of the individual project components is provided below. Refer to Figure 4, Conceptual Site Plan for more information.
Hospital Tower and D&T Building
The proposed tower would be five stories with a subgrade basement. The proposed tower would stand 74.5 feet from ground level to the top of the roof. However, mechanical equipment on the roof would be screened by a parapet and screen, which would result in a total building height of 89.5 feet. The proposed tower would provide an additional 152 acute care beds, consisting of 116 single occupancy rooms and 36 NICU rooms. The proposed tower would also include new emergency and surgical departments, eight operating rooms, 58 emergency department treatment bays, and other hospital related functions, including an inpatient pharmacy. A rotunda connecting the new tower to the existing Medical Center and various outdoor seating areas with meandering pathways and landscaping would also be constructed (see Figure 4, Conceptual Site Plan).
The D&T building would be two stories, approximately 34 feet tall to the parapet top, and constructed adjacent to the northwestern side of the proposed hospital tower. The D&T building would provide direct support to the new emergency and surgical departments as well as expanded diagnostic services and interventional radiology treatment. Upgrades to the existing central utility plant and utility connections from the central utility plant to the new buildings would include the following: a new 1.5 megawatt (MW) to 2 MW generator, a new 15,000 gallon diesel fuel tank, a new 500 brake horsepower (BHP) boiler, and a 1,000 ton chiller. The Project also includes new underground storage tanks for propane (60,000 gallons), sewage (two 25,000 gallon tanks), and water (two 25,000 gallon tanks. The building code as enforced by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) requires that a hospital facility have a 72-hour water supply tank and a sewer storage tank for disaster preparedness. The water tank is a flow-through continuously utilized facility providing the required water storage resource should the municipal infrastructure fail in a disaster. The sewer tank is only utilized through a diverter valve should the municipal sewer system fail in a disaster. The sewer tank would be pumped out post-disaster utilization
Building design would incorporate architectural elements, such as window pop-outs, balconies with overhangs, and varying roof lines, to provide articulation consistent with the City’s design standards.
Parking Facilities
As part of the proposed project, a new parking structure with five stories and rooftop parking would be constructed in the southeast corner of the project site. The maximum proposed height of the parking structure would be 70 feet above the ground surface. The parking structure would include approximately 2,500 square feet of interior office space. The parking structure would be constructed over an existing parking lot and modifications would be made to some of the on‐site surface parking lots. In total, 1,200 new parking spaces are proposed. All parking would be provided in conformance with City parking regulations and with respect for the site being in a transit priority area.
Off-site Parking
The off-site lot located at 11510 Magnolia Avenue (APN 132-020-033), which will contain 657 new parking spaces, will be used by Medical Center employees for approximately 18-months on a 24/7 basis to support the hospital’s around the clock operation. The employees will be shuttled between the lot and medical center in hospital operated vehicles. Following the employee utilization, the new hospital expansion construction staff will utilize the lot during business hours for approximately 36-months. The construction staff will be shuttled between the lot and medical center construction project.
Environmental Initial Study 5 Case Number: PR-2021-000713 The off-site lot located at 10821 Magnolia Avenue (APN 142-293-028) will be used by Medical Center and construction staff for the duration of the project during business hours. There will not be shuttling of staff involved.
The off-site lots will be improved with drive aisles, lighting, landscaping, and water quality infrastructure.
Access will be secured with a vehicle gate arm activated by a personnel badge. There will be no on-site security guard.
Ancillary Features
The proposed project would include ancillary features such as a new patient drop-off canopy, driveway, walkways, surface parking, landscaping, lighting, and signage (see Figure 5, Landscape Plan and Figure 6, Site Circulation).
Entry Plaza and Driveways
A new entry plaza with a patient drop-off canopy would be constructed south of the existing hospital building and would connect to the existing driveway off of Park Sierra Drive. A tech dock connected to the northeast side of the proposed new tower with access from Polk Street would also be constructed. An additional right-in and right-out driveway off of Magnolia Avenue would also be constructed for use by emergency vehicles only.
Landscaping
As part of the proposed project, approximately 4.2 acres of new landscaping and low-impact development (LID) and stormwater best management practices (BMP) features would be incorporated into reconfigured driveways and surface parking areas, outdoor seating areas, and retaining walls as well as the proposed new buildings and around the existing healing garden on the campus. Proposed stormwater BMPs include two water quality basins located north of the proposed new tower, a dry cobble stream bed, and a bioretention area with ornamental grasses and cobble. Once construction is complete the total impervious area at hospital expansion site will be reduced to from 509,881 square feet (SF) to 493,279 SF.
Lighting
The proposed project would include additional interior and exterior building lights and exterior lighting for safety and security purposes within parking lots, along pathways, and on buildings. All light sources would be shielded so that the light is directed away from streets and adjoining properties. Further, all light fixtures would be required to be consistent with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and the City of Riverside Zoning Code (Title 19) for illumination.
Existing Medical Center Modifications
As part of the proposed project, the 19 NICU beds at the existing Medical Center would be delicensed and the area would remain as expanded inpatient services for the labor and delivery department.
Sustainability and Energy-Saving Features
The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system and certification was developed by the US Green Building Council and serves as a guide for the design, construction, and operation of sustainable green buildings. Buildings are awarded points for environmentally significant practices and sustainable features. In accordance with Kaiser Permanente’s long-term environmental stewardship goals, the proposed facilities would be constructed to meet or exceed the LEED Gold performance standards.
Because the LEED certification program does not include parking structures, the proposed parking structure would be designed and constructed in accordance with the rating system and performance standards for Environmental Initial Study 6 Case Number: PR-2021-000713 certification under the Green Garage Certification Program, which is the parking industry’s equivalent of LEED certification, provided by the Green Parking Council, an affiliate of the International Parking Institute.
The project would also be designed to meet or exceed requirements of the most current version of the Title 24 and CALGreen Building Codes. Energy-saving features incorporated into the proposed development are anticipated to include drought-tolerant landscaping, low water and recycled water irrigation systems, energysaving lighting, mechanical systems, low-flow plumbing fixtures and fittings, and transportation-related sustainability features, such as EV charging stations and bicycle facilities.
Operations
The proposed project would result in the addition of 152 new beds requiring the support of additional operational staff of approximately 746 full-time employees. The employees would work in three shifts: day, evening, and night. The day shift supports approximately 439 employees, evening shift approximately 89 employees, and night shift approximately 218 employees. The expanded facilities would generate approximately 535 additional patient visitors per day.
Utilities
Water
Public water service would be provided by Riverside Public Utilities via connection to existing pipelines on Magnolia Avenue. The Proposed Project would increase water usage by 24,009,000 gallons of water a year above existing conditions. Waterline and storage upgrades are not required to supply water to the project as the existing water system has adequate capacity to serve the project.
Sewer
Wastewater treatment for the project would be provided by the City Public Works Department at the Riverside Regional Water Quality Control Plant. The proposed project would connect to an existing 21-inch sewer line located on Magnolia Avenue. Expansion or improvements to the City’s sewer system is not required as the existing sewer system has adequate capacity to serve the project.
Stormwater Facilities
The proposed hospital expansion area is predominantly paved in its existing condition. Approximately 10 percent of the total site would be landscaped. The proposed project would maintain existing on-site drainage patterns and be designed to utilize LID bioretention and biotreatment BMPs and landscaping features to redirect, capture, and treat surface runoff from new development prior to entering the existing storm drain system in Park Sierra Street and Magnolia Avenue. Roof runoff from new buildings would drain into landscaped areas prior to entering the existing storm drain system. No increase in stormwater runoff is anticipated with the implementation of the proposed project and no off-site improvements to the existing stormwater system would be required. Water quality infrastructure is also proposed at the two off-site locations.
Electricity
Riverside Public Utilities currently provides electrical services to the project site. All electrical lines would be undergrounded and would connect to existing connections at the corner of Magnolia Avenue and Polk Street.
The new patient tower will receive a new 12 kilovolts (kV) power circuit from City of Riverside power and meter at 12kV. There will be a unit substation 12kV-480V installed in the basement providing power to the new Patient Tower.
Environmental Initial Study 7 Case Number: PR-2021-000713 Construction
Construction Phases and Schedule
Project construction would occur over an approximate 58-month time frame in two major build phases comprising of seven subphases. The two major phases include Phase 1 for construction of the parking structure and Phase 2 for the construction of the new hospital tower and D&T building. Table 4, Construction Phases, describes the activities undertaken in each of the two major construction phases and seven subphases. Refer Figures 8A through 8D, for a breakdown of the site plan depicting each construction phase.
Table 4, Construction Phases
Phase Subphases Description Activities
Construction
Duration
(Months)
Phase 1
1-3
Make Ready –
Parking
Structure
Phases 1 and 2 include reconfiguring the
existing hospital ambulance driveway and
hospital patient drop-off area.
A temporary patient drop-off canopy for the
hospital and a new patient drop-off area for
MOB 2 will be constructed as part of Phase 2.
Following the opening of the new patient
drop-off areas, parking reconfiguration and
restriping of the ADA parking spots south of
MOB 3 and MOB 2 patient drop-off area
would be performed as part of Phase 3.
6 4 Parking
Structure
Phase 4 would involve establishing parking
structure laydown areas, demolition of
existing surface parking, grading, construction
of the cast-in-place concrete building
structure, construction of the interior 2,500
square feet of office space on the first level,
and exterior screening elements.
12 Phase 2
5 New
Ambulance
Driveway
Phase 5 involves the reconfiguration of the
existing hospital ambulance egress and the
construction of the new emergency vehicle
driveway that will provide access from
Magnolia Avenue.
4 6-7
New Hospital
Tower, D&T
Building and
Entry Plaza
Construction
Phases 6 and 7 involve construction of the
new hospital tower and correlating interior
and exterior site work, D&T building,
upgrades to the existing central utility plant,
utility connections from the central utility
plant to the new hospital tower and
undergrounding of existing aboveground
utilities, construction of a new patient entry
and drop-off canopy, reconfigured driveways,
and landscaping.
36 Source: CO Architects Site Plans (Appendix A)
Environmental Initial Study 8 Case Number: PR-2021-000713 The construction sequences would be as follows: demolition and grading, underground utility work, construction of building structure, interior buildout, exterior façade work, and final site work such as paving, coating, finishing, and/or landscaping. Minor overlap of construction subphases would occur in order to reconfigure vehicle circulation, member and staff access, and emergency fire access during construction.
Construction equipment would be delivered to the site on low-bed trucks (e.g., on boom trucks) unless the equipment can be driven to the site. All construction equipment and materials would be stored on-site in designated staging and laydown areas.
All work will be completed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between the hours 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays in accordance with the construction time limitations in the City’s Municipal Code Section 7.35.020(G).
Earthwork and Grading
The majority of earthwork would be required during the construction of the basement for the new hospital tower. The total depth of excavation for the basement construction is anticipated to be up to 20 feet below the existing ground surface. Project earthwork would require approximately 70,650 cubic yards of cut and 18,500 cubic yards of fill; thus, approximately 52,150 cubic yards of soil export would be required. Soil export would require approximately 3,725 trips. The material would be disposed of at an approved landfill facility approximately 17 miles from the project site.
Grading would be accomplished with scrapers, motor graders, water trucks, dozers, and compaction equipment.
Building materials would be off-loaded and installed using small cranes, boom trucks, forklifts, rubber-tired loaders, rubber-tired backhoes, and other small- to medium-sized construction equipment as needed.
Demolition and New Construction
Demolition and construction would be accomplished with cranes, dozers, and other heavy equipment. Waste materials would be uploaded onto large trucks using small cranes, forklifts, and other construction equipment as needed. Pile driving would not be required for new building construction.
Staging and Laydown Areas
Construction laydown, staging, and storage areas would be located at the existing Medical Center surface parking lots. (see Figure 8B, Construction Sub Phases 3 and 4, Figure 8C, Construction Sub Phases 5 and 6, and Figure 8D, Construction Sub Phase 7.).
As shown in Figure 1, Regional and Vicinity Map, the proposed project would also utilize up to two off-site areas for temporary worker parking. Both off-site areas, totaling approximately 6.31 acres, are located within
0.93 miles from the project site and can be accessed via Magnolia Avenue. Off-site Area 1 (1.32 acres) is located across from the proposed project site at 10821 Magnolia Avenue and Off-site Area 2 (4.99 acres) is located at 11510 Magnolia Avenue.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting:
The area surrounding the project site is highly developed and urbanized with a variety of land uses, including commercial, single-family residential, and medium-high density residential. SR-91 runs east-west approximately 0.15 miles east of the site. A Metrolink railroad runs parallel to SR-91 with the La Sierra Metrolink Station located southeast of the site. Refer to Table 5, Surrounding Land Uses, for the land use and zoning designations for the surrounding are.
Environmental Initial Study 9 Case Number: PR-2021-000713 Table 5, Surrounding Land Uses
Existing Land Use General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation
Project Site Kaiser Permanente Hospital (Medical
Campus)
Mixed-Use
Urban (MU-U)
Commercial Retail and
Specific Plan (Magnolia
Avenue) Overlay Zones
(CR-SP)
North
(Across
Magnolia
Avenue)
Commercial businesses and vacant lot;
Empire Shopping Plaza; and Pep Boys
Auto
Mixed-Use
Village (MU-V)
Mixed-Use Village and
Specific Plan (Magnolia
Avenue) Overlay Zones
(MU-V-SP)
East
(Across Polk
Street)
Healthcare and residential uses; Magnolia
Plastic Surgery Center, and single-family
residential
Mixed-Use
Urban (MU-U)
Commercial Retail and
Specific Plan (Magnolia
Avenue) Overlay Zones
(CR-SP);
Residential (R-1-7000)
South Recreation and commercial uses; Castle
Park, and parking lots
Private
Recreation (PR) Commercial Retail (CR)
West
(Across Park
Sierra Drive)
Commercial and healthcare uses; Mission
Surgical Clinic Inc., and restaurants
Mixed-Use
Urban (MU-U)
Commercial Retail and
Specific Plan (Magnolia
Avenue) Overlay Zones
(CR-SP)
Existing Land Use General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation
Project Site,
Off-Site Area
1 (10821
Magnolia
Avenue; APN
142-293-028)
Vacant/Undeveloped Land Mixed-Use
Village (MU-V)
Mixed Use Village and
Specific Plan (Magnolia
Avenue) Overlay Zones
(MU-V-SP)
North Residential
Medium Density
Residential (
MDR)
Single Family Residential
(R-1-7000)
East Commercial Retail Mixed-Use
Village (MU-V)
Mixed Use Village and
Specific Plan (Magnolia
Avenue) Overlay Zones
(MU-V-SP)
Environmental Initial Study 10 Case Number: PR-2021-000713 Existing Land Use General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation
South
(Across
Magnolia Ave)
Kaiser Permanente Hospital (Medical
Campus)
Mixed-Use
Urban (MU-U)
Commercial Retail and
Specific Plan (Magnolia
Avenue) Overlay Zones
(CR-SP)
West Pep Boys Auto Mixed-Use
Village (MU-V)
Mixed Use Village and
Specific Plan (Magnolia
Avenue) Overlay Zones
(MU-V-SP)
Existing Land Use General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation
Project Site,
Off-Site Area
2 (11510
Magnolia
Avenue; APN
132-020-033)
Vacant/Undeveloped Land Mixed-Use
Village (MU-V)
Single Family Residential
and Specific Plan (Magnolia
Avenue) Overlay Zones (R1-7000-SP) and Commercial
General and Specific Plan
(Magnolia Avenue) Overlay
Zones (CG-SP)
North
(Across
Magnolia Ave)
Multi-Family Residential
High Density
Residential
(HDR)
Multi-family Residential and
Specific Plan (Magnolia
Avenue) Overlay Zones (R3-1500-SP)
East
(Across
Fillmore St)
Rancho Riverside Mobile Home Park and
Single Family Residential
High Density
Residential
(HDR)
Multi-Family Residential,
Building Stories (maximum
2-story), and Specific Plan
(Magnolia Avenue) Overlay
Zones (R-3-2000-S-2-SP)
Single Family Residential
and Specific Plan (Magnolia
Avenue) Overlay Zones (R1-7000-SP)
South
(Across 91
FWY)
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
(SAWPA) Office
Business/Office
Park (B/OP)
Business and Manufacturing
Park and Specific Plan
(Magnolia Avenue) Overlay
Zones (BMP-SP)
West Multi-Family Residential Mixed-Use
Village (MU-V)
Multi-family Residential and
Specific Plan (Magnolia
Avenue) Overlay Zones (R3-1500-SP)
Environmental Initial Study 11 Case Number: PR-2021-000713
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financial approval, or participation agreement.):
Table 6, Required Actions and Approvals, presents a summary of the public agency required actions and approvals for implementation of the proposed project.
Table 6, Required Actions and Approvals
Agency Required Action
State Water Resources Control
Board
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Office of Statewide Health
Planning and Development Construction Permit (New Tower and D&T Building)
11. 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.?
In accordance with Public Resources Code 21080.3.1, the City of Riverside sent out AB 52 consultation notices on August 9, 2021, to the following tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, Cahuilla Band of Indians, Pechanga Cultural Resources Department, Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians to initiate consultation. Tribal consultation will continue and be concluded prior to certification of the EIR.
12. Sources Referenced in Preparation of this Initial Study:
a. City of Riverside, General Plan 2025
b. City of Riverside, GP 2025 FPEIR
c. City of Riverside, Magnolia Avenue Specific Plan, 2009 d. Title 19, Zoning Code
e. Title 20, Cultural Resources
f. Title 17, Grading Code
13. List of Appendices
Appendix A – Detailed Site Plan Set, CO Architects
Appendix B – Air Quality Technical Memorandum, Michael Baker International Appendix C – Cultural Resources Assessment, ECORP Consultants Appendix D – Proposed Hospital Expansion Geotechnical Investigation Report, Twining Inc.
Appendix E – Proposed Parking Structure Geotechnical Investigation Report, Twining Inc.
Appendix F – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum, Michael Baker International Appendix G – Noise Study, Michael Baker International
Environmental Initial Study 12 Case Number: PR-2021-000713 Appendix H – Preliminary Technical Drainage Study, Michael Baker International Appendix I – Preliminary Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan, Michael Baker International Appendix J – Sewer Study Report, Michael Baker International Appendix K – Energy Calculations, Michael Baker International Appendix L – Native Soils Memorandum
14. Acronyms
AB Assembly Bill
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
AUSD Alvord Unified School District
BMP best management practices
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CARB California Air Resources Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
D&T Diagnostic and Treatment
EIR environmental impact report
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EV electric vehicle
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FPEIR Final Program Environmental Impact Report
FTA Federal Transportation Administration
GIS geographic information System
GHG greenhouse gas
GP 2025 General Plan 2025
GPD gallons per day
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LID low-impact development
LOS level of service
MASP Magnolia Avenue Specific Plan
MGD million gallons per day
Environmental Initial Study 13 Case Number: PR-2021-000713 MOB medical office building
MSHCP Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NICU neonatal intensive care unit
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OEM Office of Emergency Management
OPR Office of Planning & Research, State
PRC Public Resources Code
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RPU Riverside Public Utilities
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SF square feet
SR State Route
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TDM Transportation Demand Management
USGS U.S. Geologic Survey
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WMWD Western Municipal Water District
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
Environmental Initial Study 14 Case Number: PR-2021-000713 Page Intentionally Left Blank
FIGURE 1 REGIONAL MAP & VICINITY MAP
KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE | MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION
0 1,000’ 2,000’
SOURCE: BING MAPS / GOOGLE MAPS
1 2
POLK ST.
PROJECT SITE
OFF-SITE AREAS
PROJECT
SITE
BURGE ST.
LA SIERRA AVE.
GOLDEN AVE.
FILLMORE ST. FILLMORE ST.
LA SIERRA AVE.
PARK SIERRA DR.
MAGNOLIA AVE.
MERCER AVE.
RIVERSIDE
MORENO
VALLEY
CORONA
ANAHEIM
SANTA
ANA
IRVINE
PROJECT
SITE
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 2A PROPOSED HOSPITAL EXPANSION
KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE | MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION
SOURCE: MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL / ESRI, RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIGURE 2B PROPOSED TEMPORARY OFF-SITE PARKING AREAS
KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE | MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION
SOURCE: BING MAPS / GOOGLE MAPS
1 2
POLK ST.
OFF-SITE AREA 1
PROJECT
SITE
BURGE ST.
LA SIERRA AVE.
GOLDEN AVE.
FILLMORE ST.
PARK SIERRA DR.
MAGNOLIA AVE.
MERCER AVE.
KEY MAP SCALE: 1” = 1,000’
OFF-SITE AREA 1 SCALE: 1” = 60’
PROJECT SITE
OFF-SITE AREAS
PROJECT SITE
PARK SIERRA DR.
MAGNOLIA AVE.
MAGNOLIA AVE.
FILLMORE ST.
BURGE ST.
OFF-SITE AREA 2 SCALE: 1” = 60’
OFF-SITE AREA 2
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 3 EXISTING SITE PLAN
KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE | MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION
SOURCE: CO ARCHITECTS
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 4 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE | MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION
SOURCE: CO ARCHITECTS
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 5 LANDSCAPE PLAN
KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE | MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION
SOURCE: CO ARCHITECTS
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 6 SITE CIRCULATION
KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE | MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION
SOURCE: CO ARCHITECTS
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 7 BMP PLAN
KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE | MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION
SOURCE: CO ARCHITECTS
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 8A CONSTRUCTION SUB PHASES 1 AND 2
KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE | MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION
SOURCE: CO ARCHITECTS
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
OFF-SITE AREA 1
OFF-SITE AREA 2 OFF-SITE AREA 1
OFF-SITE AREA 2
FIGURE
8 B CONSTRUCTION SUB PHASE
S 3 AND 4
KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE | MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION
SOURCE: CO ARCHITECTS
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
PHASE 3 PHASE 4
FIGURE
8 C CONSTRUCTION SUB PHASE
S 5 AND 6
KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE | MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION
SOURCE: CO ARCHITECTS
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
PHASE 5 PHASE 6
FIGURE
8 D CONSTRUCTION SUB PHASE 7
KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE | MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION
SOURCE: CO ARCHITECTS
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
PHASE 7
FIGURE 9A HOSPITAL VISUAL SIMULATION 1
KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE | MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION
SOURCE: CO ARCHITECTS
FIGURE 9B HOSPITAL VISUAL SIMULATION 2
KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE | MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION
SOURCE: CO ARCHITECTS
FIGURE 9C PARKING STRUCTURE VISUAL SIMULATION 1
KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE | MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION
SOURCE: CO ARCHITECTS
FIGURE 9D PARKING STRUCTURE VISUAL SIMULATION 2
KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE | MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION
SOURCE: CO ARCHITECTS
FIGURE 9E PARKING STRUCTURE VISUAL SIMULATION 3
KAISER PERMANENTE RIVERSIDE | MEDICAL CENTER EXPANSION
SOURCE: CO ARCHITECTS
Environmental Initial Study 32 Case Number: PR-2021-000713 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 all 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 Brian Norton, Senior Planner For City of Riverside 9/13/2021
Initial Study 33 Case Number PR-2021-000713
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Initial Study 34 Case # PR-2021-000713
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 reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Initial Study 35 Case # PR-2021-000713
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.
Initial Study 36 Case # PR-2021-000713
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 Figure CCM-4 – Master Plan of Roadways; General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element; General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.1-1 – Scenic and Special Boulevards and Parkways, Table 5.1-A – Scenic and Special Boulevards, and Table 5.1-B – Scenic Parkways)
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City’s General Plan, “[v]ista points can be found throughout the City both from urban areas toward the hills and from wilderness areas looking onto Riverside. Long-distance views of natural terrain and vegetation can be found throughout the La Sierra/Norco Hills, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park and Box Springs Park.” The project site is also located in the Magnolia Avenue Specific Plan (MASP) area.
According to the City’s General Plan 2025 FPEIR, the MASP area does not contain prominent hills or other topographic qualitiesthat may be considered as a scenic vista (Magnolia Specific Plan 2007). Although the MASP contains buildings and local landmarks (such as the Parent Navel Orange Tree) that could be considered scenic, these sites are considered as scenic resources under CEQA and are further evaluated in Response 1b, below.
The proposed project consists of an expansion of an existing hospital within an urbanized area completely surrounded by existing development. The project is bordered by Magnolia Avenue to the north, Polk Street to the east and Park Sierra Drive to the west. Due to the established surrounding areas, there are no visible vistas from the project site. Views of the vistas listed above are either not visible from the project site or obstructed by existing development. Furthermore, the existing buildings on-site are similar in height, scale, and size, so the proposed project would complement the existing visual setting of the urbanized area (See Figure 9.) Therefore, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant, and this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR.
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 Figure CCM-4 – Master Plan of Roadways; General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.1-1 – Scenic and Special Boulevards, Parkways, Table 5.1-A – Scenic and Special Boulevards, and Table 5.1-B – Scenic Parkways; Urban Forestry Policy Manual (2007); Zoning Code Title 20 – Cultural Resources)
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no state scenic highways within the City that could potentially be impacted by the proposed project. There are also no rock outcroppings, historic trees, or historic buildings within view of this proposed project so no impacts to these resources are expected; refer to Response 5a, below.
Furthermore, the existing buildings on-site are similar in height, scale, and size, so the proposed project would complement the existing visual setting of the urbanized area. As shown in Figure 9, Visual Simulation, the new tower would not result in significant changes to the visual setting due to the existing development at the project site and surrounding area. The project is adjacent to a City-designated Special Scenic Boulevard (Magnolia Avenue), but is set back by more than 15 feet from Magnolia Avenue and still allows for pedestrian and vehicle access to prevent congestion.
Initial Study 37 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
Impacts would be less than significant, and this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR. c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site 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 consists of an expansion of an existing hospital within an urbanized area completely surrounded by existing development. The project has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding area and the existing buildings on-site. Building design would incorporate architectural elements, such as window pop-outs, enclosed balconies, and varying roof lines, to provide articulation consistent with the City’s design standards.
Additionally, the project would comply with objectives and policies of the Magnolia Avenue Specific Plan (MASP), which aims to promote scenic beautification, historic preservation, and provision of pedestrian and bike facilities. The purpose and goal of the MASP is to identify appropriate land uses, development opportunities, and streetscape improvements along the Magnolia Avenue corridor that support the vision as a scenic boulevard. The proposed project is within the La Sierra District of the MASP. This district has additional objectives and policies that further support the MASP. The proposed project supports La Sierra District’s objectives to enhance the district as a major employment center and increase medical support services in the area by expanding its existing facilities which would increase employment and medical support services in the district and by extension, the MASP.
The project would also comply with the City’s Zoning Code, which requires review and approval of all site plans.
The proposed project would be compatible with the surrounding zoning and land uses because the surrounding uses (commercial, retail, recreation commercial, and mixed use) are similar in use and intensity to the project.
Refer to Table 5, Surrounding Land Uses for the land use and zoning designations for the surrounding areas.
The project does not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations regarding scenic quality. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the visual character and quality of the area directly, indirectly, and cumulatively. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 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; General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.1-2 – Mount Palomar Lighting Area; Zoning Code)
Initial Study 38 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would add additional exterior building lights and exterior lighting for safety and security purposes within parking lots, along pathways and on buildings. All light sources would be shielded so that the light is directed away from streets and adjoining properties. Further, all light fixtures would be required to be consistent with CALGreen standards and the City of Riverside Zoning Code (Title 19) for illumination. All ancillary features would also comply with applicable City design standards and regulations.
The project would also be designed to meet or exceed requirements of the most current Title 24 Part 6 and Part 11 (CALGreen) standards, including energy-saving lighting.
Although the project would add new sources of potential light and glare (i.e. new lights and windows), the project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views as the existing project site and surrounding areas are fully developed and urbanized with existing lighting. With compliance with CALGreen standards, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The project would result in less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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 Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
fregarding 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; California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program)
No Impact. The project is located within an urbanized area. The project site currently supports an existing medical center that is highly developed with buildings, parking lots, and pavement. The proposed project is located on land that is highly disturbed and/or paved. The area surrounding the project site is highly developed and urbanized with a variety of land uses such as commercial, single-family residential, and medium-high density residential.
As shown in the City’s 2025 General Plan, Figure OS-2 Agricultural Suitability map, the project site is located in an area designated as Urban and Built-Up Land.
Initial Study 39 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
According to available maps published by the California Department of Conservation (CDC) as part of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site does not support Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Furthermore, since the surrounding areas do not support farmland, implementation of the proposed project would not affect off-site farmland. Therefore, the project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. No impacts would occur. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 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) No Impact. The site is zoned Commercial Retail (CR) and has a land use designation of Mixed-Use Urban (MUU). As noted in Response 2a., the project site is highly developed and does not support farmland or agriculture uses. As shown in the City’s 2025 General Plan, Figure OS-3 Williamson Act Preserves map, the project site is not located in an area designated as a Williamson Act Preserve or Contracted Land.
Therefore, the project would not create a conflict with existing agricultural zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 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 Figure OS-2 – Agricultural Suitability; California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program)
No Impact. The City of Riverside has no forestland that can support 10 percent native tree cover nor does it have any timberland. Therefore, no impacts would occur from project implementation. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
2d. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure OS-2 – Agricultural Suitability; California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program)
No Impact. Refer to Response 2c., above. There is no designated forestland on or adjacent to the project site; therefore, the project would not convert any such lands to non-forest uses. No impact would occur with regard to this issue. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 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 2025 Figure OS-2 – Agricultural Suitability; California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program) No Impact. Refer to Responses 2a. through 2d., above. As stated, lands affected by the project are not located within an agricultural use area and do not support designated farmland or forestland. As a result, the land within the Project site will not result in a direct or indirect conversion of Farmland or forestland. Thus, project Initial Study 40 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
implementation would not result in changes in the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or forestland to non-forest use. No impact would occur. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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?
3a.Response: (Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, Air Quality Technical Memorandum, prepared by Michael Baker International (Appendix B)) Less Than Significant Impact. The analysis in this section is based on the Air Quality Technical Memorandum (September 3, 2021) prepared by Michael Baker International. For more information on the environmental setting, assumptions, and methods used in this analysis, please refer to Appendix B of this Initial Study.
The City is located within the South Coast Air Basin. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction in the basin, which has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of the air pollutants for which the basin is in nonattainment. The Basin is currently a federal and State nonattainment area for particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5), and ozone.
In order to reduce emissions, the SCAQMD adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving state and federal air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the US Environmental Protection Agency.
The 2016 AQMP pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016-2040 RTP/SCS), updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. While SCAG has recently adopted the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS), SCAQMD has not released an updated AQMP.
SCAQMD is planning to release the updated AQMP in 2022. As such, this consistency analysis is based on the 2016 AQMP and the RTP/SCS that was adopted at the time, the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.
Land use planning strategies set forth in the 2016 AQMP are primarily based on the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. While the project does not involve residential development, the project would generate approximately 746 full time equivalent jobs and could indirectly induce population growth if future employees move into the City to work at the expanded hospital. While it is likely that future employees already live in the City or would commute in from Initial Study 41 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
neighboring jurisdictions, this analysis conservatively assumes all 746 future employees would move into the City for employment.
Based on an average household size of 3.28, the project would result in an indirect population increase of approximately 2,446 persons. SCAG growth forecasts in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS estimate the City’s population to reach 386,600 persons by 2040, representing a total increase of 75,900 persons between 2012 and 2040. The project’s potential indirect population growth (2,446 persons) represents 3.22 percent of the City’s anticipated population increase by 2040, and less than one percent of the City’s total projected 2040 population. Additionally, SCAG growth forecasts in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS estimate the City’s employment to reach 200,500 jobs by 2040, representing a total increase of 80,500 jobs between 2012 and 2040. The approximately 746 projectgenerated jobs represent approximately one percent of the City’s anticipated jobs increase by 2040, and less than half of one percent of the City’s total projected 2040 employment.
Therefore, the project would not cause the General Plan buildout population or employment forecasts to be exceeded. The population, housing, and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City. Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2016 AQMP, it can be concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with the projections. Additionally, compliance with all feasible emission reduction rules and measures identified by the SCAQMD would be required as identified in Responses 3b and 3c, below.
As such, the project would be consistent with the actions and strategies of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. Furthermore, project consistency with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and the 2016 AQMP would promote the City’s goal to protect air quality by incorporating General Plan Air Quality Element objectives and policies. The SCAQMD considers projects that are consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants, to also have less than significant cumulative impacts. As such, the proposed project would meet this AQMP consistency criterion. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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: South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, Air Quality Technical Memorandum, prepared by Michael Baker International (Appendix B)) Less Than Significant Impact. The analysis in this section is based on the Air Quality Technical Memorandum (September 3, 2021) prepared by Michael Baker International. For more information on the environmental setting, assumptions, and methods used in this analysis, please refer to Appendix B of this Initial Study.
Short-Term Construction
The project involves construction activities associated with demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating applications. Construction of the project is anticipated to occur over an approximate 58- month timeframe from the onset of demolition through final construction. Demolition and construction would be completed in seven phases. This Project consists of demolishing the existing surface parking lot located on the southeastern corner of the existing site (351,000 square feet) and demolishing the traffic loop, landscape and surface parking (387,000 square feet) located on the northwestern side of the project. Demolition of the parking lots will take place during constriction Subphases 2-4. Air quality impacts from this demolition has been included Initial Study 42 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
in the air quality modeling. Subphases 1-4 would be completed in approximately 18 months and Subphases 5-7 would be completed in approximately 40 months (refer to Table 4, Construction Phases).
Demolition and construction would be accomplished with cranes, dozers, and other heavy equipment. Waste materials would be uploaded onto large trucks using small cranes, forklifts, and other construction equipment as needed. Construction activities would comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site, and Rule 403, which requires that excessive fugitive dust emissions be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures. As depicted in Table 7, total PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during construction.
Table 7, Short-Term Construction Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds/day)1,2
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction Related Emissions2
Year 1 4.88 38.908 32.51 0.09 5.75 2.92
Year 2 5.03 51.56 47.69 0.14 7.76 3.55
Year 3 2.54 18.96 26.72 0.08 4.78 1.73
Year 4 2.37 17.90 26.10 0.08 4.69 1.65
Year 5 17.11 17.82 25.60 0.07 4.69 1.65
Maximum Daily Emissions 17.11 51.56 47.69 0.14 7.76 3.55 SCAQMD Thresholds3 75 100 550 150 150 55
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes:
1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2020.4.0, as recommended by the SCAQMD. Winter emissions represent worst-case scenario and is therefore presented as a conservative analysis.
2. The reduction/credits for construction emissions are based on adjustments to CalEEMod and are required by the SCAQMD Rules. The adjustments applied in CalEEMod includes the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
3. Construction thresholds apply to both the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley (Salton Sea and Mojave Desert Air Basins). Source: South Coast AQMD, CEQA Handbook, 1993.
Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix B for assumptions used in this analysis.
Long-Term (Operational) Emissions
Long-term air quality impacts would consist of mobile source emissions generated from project-related traffic, and emissions from stationary area and energy sources. Emissions generated by the proposed project were calculated and are discussed below.
Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern (NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical smog], and wind currents readily transport SOX, PM10, and PM2.5); however, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source. Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for natural gas, consumer products, area architectural coatings, and landscaping Initial Study 43 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
equipment associated with the development of the proposed project. Operational energy source emissions are generated as a result of electricity and natural gas usage associated with a project.
As shown in Table 8, total operational emissions for both summer and winter would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Table 8, Long-Term Operational Air Emissions
Emissions Source
Pollutant (lbs/day)1
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project Summer Emissions
Area Source Emissions 6.90 <0.01 0.15 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Energy Emissions 0.70 6.40 5.38 0.04 0.49 0.49
Mobile Emissions2 7.06 4.65 40.97 0.07 7.22 1.96
Total Emissions3 14.67 11.05 46.50 0.11 7.71 2.45
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Proposed Project Winter Emissions
Area Source Emissions 6.90 <0.01 0.15 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Energy Emissions 0.70 6.40 5.38 0.04 0.49 0.49
Mobile Emissions2 6.57 4.99 42.67 0.06 7.22 1.96
Total Emissions3 14.18 11.40 48.20 0.10 7.71 2.45
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes:
1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0
2. The mobile source emissions were calculated using the trip generation data provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis, Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion prepared by LSA Associates (dated June 2021).
3. The numbers may be slightly off due to rounding.
Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix B for assumptions used in this analysis.
Air Quality Health Impacts
Adverse health effects induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individual [e.g., age, gender]). In particular, ozone precursors ROGs and NOx affect air quality on a regional scale. Health effects related to ozone are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region. Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations, and, as such, translating project-generated criteria pollutants to specific health effects or additional days of nonattainment would produce meaningless results. In other words, the project’s less than significant increases in regional air pollution from criteria air pollutants would have nominal or negligible (i.e. less than significant) impacts on human health.
As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae submitted by the SCAQMD to the California Supreme Court in Sierra Club vs. County of Fresno, dated April 6, 2015, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to quantify health impacts of criteria pollutants for various reasons including modeling limitations as well as where in the atmosphere air pollutants interact and form. Further, as noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) also submitted in Sierra Club vs. County of Fresno, currently Initial Study 44 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
available modeling tools are not equipped to provide a meaningful analysis of the correlation between an individual development project’s air emissions and specific human health impacts.
In conclusion, the project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operational air emissions.
Accordingly, less than significant impacts would also result with respect to adverse health effects of project emissions. Implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard and air quality impacts would be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
3c. Response: (Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, Air Quality Technical Memorandum, prepared by Michael Baker International (Appendix B)) Less Than Significant Impact. The analysis in this section is based on the Air Quality Technical Memorandum (2021) prepared by Michael Baker International. For more information on the environmental setting, assumptions, and methods used in this analysis, please refer to Appendix B of this Initial Study.
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses.
Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.
The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the single- and multi-family residences as well as a nursing home (Arlington Gardens Care Center) located to the north of the project site across Polk Street. The singlefamily residences are located approximately 100 feet to the north of the project site across Polk Street, approximately 450 feet from the nearest project construction area.
Non-Residential Receptors
Commercial and industrial uses (i.e., non-residential receptors) are not included in the definition of sensitive receptor because employees and patrons do not typically remain on-site for a full 24 hours and are usually on-site for eight hours or less. However, the LST Methodology states that “LSTs based on shorter averaging periods, such as the NO2 and CO LSTs, could also be applied to receptors such as industrial or commercial facilities since it is reasonable to assume that a worker at these sites could be present for periods of one to eight hours.” (Appendix B). The closest commercial use is a commercial building located to the west of the project site across Magnolia Avenue, approximately 170 feet from the project’s construction limit.
Construction LST
The SCAQMD’s guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs specifies the number of acres a particular piece of equipment would likely disturb per day. Based on default information provided by CalEEMod, the project is anticipated to disturb more than five acres per day during the grading phase. Therefore, the LST thresholds for five acres were utilized for the construction LST analysis. The nearest sensitive receptor is a commercial building located to the west of the project site across Magnolia Avenue, approximately 170 feet (51.8 meters) from the Initial Study 45 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
project’s construction limit (the proposed hospital tower). Therefore, LST values for 25 meters were conservatively used.
Table 9, Localized Emissions Significance, shows the localized construction-related emissions for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 compared to the LSTs for SRA 23. It is noted that the localized emissions presented in Table 9 are less than those in Table 7 because localized emissions include only on-site emissions (e.g., from construction equipment and fugitive dust) and do not include off-site emissions (e.g., from hauling activities). As shown in Table 9, the project’s localized construction emissions would not exceed the LSTs for SRA 23. Therefore, localized significance impacts from project-related construction activities would be less than significant.
Table 9, Localized Emissions Significance
Emissions Source Pollutant (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction On-site Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions1 38.84 29.04 5.04 2.86
Localized Significance Thresholds 270 1,577 13 8
Is Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Notes:
1. The 2022 grading phase emissions would present the worst-case scenario for NOX and CO, and the 2023 grading phase emissions would represent the worst-case scenario for PM10 and PM2.5.
2. The reduction/credits for construction emissions applied in CalEEMod are based on the application of dust control techniques as required by SCAQMD Rule 403. The dust control techniques include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces twice daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
3. The Localized Significance Threshold was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The Localized Significance Threshold was based on the anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction (more than five acres; therefore the 5-acre threshold was used) and Source Receptor Area 23.
Source: CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix B for assumptions used in this analysis.
Operational LST
According to SCAQMD localized significance threshold methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend extended periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). The proposed project includes the expansion of a Kaiser Permanente medical facility. As such, a nominal amount of truck trips is anticipated at the project site. These truck activities would be intermittent and would not include extended periods of idling time; therefore, idling emissions from truck trips would be minimal. Additionally, potential emergency vehicle trips to and from the project site would be sporadic and would not idle on-site or along adjacent roadways for long periods of time. Thus, due to the lack of such emissions, no long-term LST analysis is necessary.
Operational LST impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (i.e., adversely affecting residents, school children, hospital patients, and the elderly). The Basin is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for the Federal CO standards and an attainment area for State standards.
Initial Study 46 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A detailed CO analysis was conducted in the Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (CO Plan) for the SCAQMD’s 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, which is the most recent AQMP that addresses CO concentrations. The locations selected for microscale modeling in the CO Plan are worst-case intersections in the Basin and would likely experience the highest CO concentrations. Thus, CO analysis within the CO Plan is utilized in a comparison to the proposed project, since it represents a worst-case scenario with heavy traffic volumes within the Basin.
Of these locations, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection in Los Angeles County experienced the highest CO concentration (4.6 parts per million [ppm]), which is well below the 35-ppm one-hour CO Federal standard. The Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection is one of the most congested intersections in southern California with an average daily trip volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. As CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any intersections within the City of Riverside near the project site due to the comparatively low volume of traffic that would occur as a result of project implementation (Appendix B).
Localized Air Quality Health Impacts
As evaluated above, the project’s air emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s LST thresholds, and CO hotpots would not occur as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not exceed the most stringent applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5. It should be noted that the ambient air quality standards are developed and represent levels at which the most susceptible persons (e.g., children and the elderly) are protected. In other words, the ambient air quality standards are purposefully set in a stringent manner to protect children, elderly, and those with existing respiratory problems.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations as the project would not exceed the SCAQMD LST thresholds, would not cause a CO hotspot, and would not create a localized air quality health impact. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
3d. Response: (Source: California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, April 2005, Air Quality Technical Memorandum, prepared by Michael Baker International (Appendix B)) Less Than Significant Impact. The analysis in this section is based on the Air Quality Technical Memorandum (2021) prepared by Michael Baker International. For more information on the environmental setting, assumptions, and methods used in this analysis, please refer to Appendix B of this Initial Study.
According to CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by CARB as being associated with odors.
Construction activities associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. However, construction-related odors would be short term in nature and cease upon project completion. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the California Code of Initial Study 47 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by shutting it off when not in use or by reducing the time of idling to no more than five minutes. This would further reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The project would also comply with the SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 – Architectural Coating, which would minimize odor impacts from reactive organic gas emissions during architectural coating.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people and impacts would be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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 Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
4a.Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure OS-5 – Habitat Areas and Vegetation Communities, Figure OS-6 Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Core Reserve and Other Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP), Figure OS-7 – MSHCP Cores and Linkages, and Figure OS-8 – MSHCP Cell Areas; General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.4-2 – MSHCP Area Plans, 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, and Figure 5.4-8 – MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area)
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of an expansion of an existing hospital project within an urbanized area completely surrounded by existing development. According to Figure OS-5, the project site is designated as Residential/Urban/Exotic which means that the project site is not expected to support sensitive habitat.
As the project site is completely disturbed and does not have habitat to support listed or sensitive species, the proposed project’s potential to adversely affect species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional policies/regulations would be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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: 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, and Figure OS-8 – MSHCP Cell Areas; General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.4-2 – MSHCP Area Plans, 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, and Figure 5.4-8 – MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area) Initial Study 48 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4a, above. The project site is heavily disturbed and located in an urbanized area. No riparian habitat exists on-site and, due to the existing development on the project site, intact vegetation communities are not present. As such, the land use type of the project site is classified as urban/developed, which is not considered to be a sensitive natural community.
Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service. Impacts would be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federallyprotected 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) No Impact. The project is located within an urbanized area where no federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) exist on-site or within proximity to the project site. The project site does not contain any discernible drainage courses, inundated areas, wetland vegetation, or hydric soils and thus does not include US Army Corps of Engineers designated jurisdictional drainages or wetlands. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact to federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act directly, indirectly, and cumulatively. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 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: Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; General Plan 2025 Figure OS-7 – MSHCP Cores and Linkage)
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Response 4a, above. The project site is located within an urban built-up area. The project site is located within the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP); however, it is not located in a criteria cell or a MSHCP linkage area intended to protect lands for wildlife movement; refer to Figure OS-7 – MSHCP Cores and Linkage in the City’s General Plan. The site has a history of severe disturbance such that there is little chance that the project would interfere 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. The project contains ornamental trees on-site that would be removed as part of project construction. Although the potential is considered low, there is the potential for migratory birds and raptors to nest on-site due to the presence of on-site ornamental trees. The nesting season is typically from February 1st to August 31st The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements international treaties between the United States and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, their parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. The State of California has incorporated the protection of birds of prey in FGC Sections 3800, 3513, and 3503.5. All raptors and their nests are protected Initial Study 49 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
from take or disturbance under the MBTA (16 United States Code [USC] Section 703 et seq.) and California statute (FGC Section 3503.5).
The project would comply with the MBTA to ensure migratory birds are not affected by project construction. In accordance with the MBTA, if active nests are identified on-site or in the immediate vicinity, construction activities would be halted to determine the appropriate course of action. A mitigation measure MM Bio 1, has been added to ensure nesting birds are not harmed when trees are removed as part of the project.
MM Bio 1: Pursuant to the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, removal of any trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat should be conducted outside the avian nesting season.
The nesting season generally extends from February 1 through August 31, beginning as early as January 1 for raptor species, but can vary slightly from year to year based upon seasonal weather conditions. If ground disturbance and vegetation removal cannot occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 through February 31), a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any ground-disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction.
If the biologist finds an active nest on the Project site and determines that the nest may be impacted, 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 the nests of nonlisted species and 500 feet from the nests of raptors and listed species. Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on an aerial photograph.
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 a Construction Monitor when construction activities take place near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur.
Results of the pre-construction 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 compliance with the MBTA, impacts to migratory birds would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would not 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. The project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated as MM Bio 1, directly, indirectly and cumulatively and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. However, MM Bio 1 will be added to the Effects Found Not Significant in the forthcoming EIR and MM Bio 1 will be added to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program as part of the Final EIR. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
4e. Response: (Source: Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; Title 16 Section
16.72.040 – Establishing the Western Riverside County MSHCP Mitigation Fee, Title 16 Section 16.40.040 Initial Study 50 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
– Establishing a Threatened and Endangered Species Fees; City of Riverside Urban Forestry Policy Manual)
Less Than Significant. The General Plan 2025 includes policies to ensure that future development would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Objectives and policies that relate to biological resources and would apply to the project include the following:
Objective LU-7: Preserve and protect significant areas of native wildlife and plant habitat, including endangered species.
• Policy LU-7.2: Design new development adjacent and in close proximity to native wildlife in a manner which protects and preserves habitat.
• Policy LU-7.4: Continue to participate in the Western Riverside County MSHCP.
Objective OS-5: Protect biotic communities and critical habitats for endangered species throughout the General Plan Area.
• Policy OS-5.2: Continue to participate in the MSHCP Program and ensure all projects comply with applicable requirements.
• Policy OS-5.4: Protect native plant communities in the General Plan Area, including sage scrub, riparian areas and vernal pools, consistent with the MSHCP.
The City does not have a tree preservation ordinance, but it has an adopted Urban Forestry Policy Manual to establish guidelines for planting, pruning, preservation, and removal of all trees in City rights-of-way. The project does not propose the removal or planting trees in the City’s rights-of-way. The project will not conflict with any of the General Plan policies listed above. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and the project would have a less than significant impact directly, indirectly, and cumulatively on local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 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: Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan - RCA MSHCP Information Map (arcgis.com); General Plan 2025 Figure OS-6 – Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Core Reserve
Less Than Significant. The project site falls within the boundaries of two Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs):
the MSHCP and the Stephens Kangaroo Rat (SKR) HCP. The Project site is not, however, located within a Criteria Cell of the MSHCP, which would require consideration of part or all of the project site to be set aside for conservation. Although the project does not have a requirement to set aside land for the MSHCP Conservation area, the City is a Permittee to the MSHCP and therefore must ensure that all projects comply with Sections 6.1.2,
6.1.3 6.1.4 and 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.
Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP requires assessment of riparian, riverine, fairy shrimp and vernal pool habitats. none of these features, habitats or vegetation communities are present on the site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.
Section 6.1.3 requires assessment of sites in a designed survey area for narrow endemic plants to be completed.
The project site does not contain habitat for endemic plants, and is not located within one of these survey areas; Initial Study 51 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
and is therefore not required to survey for any narrow endemic plants. Because there is no habitat and the project site is not in a survey area, the project does not conflict with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. Section 6.1.4 requires projects located adjacent or near MSHCP conservation areas to consider edge effects or conditions of their urban/wildlife interface into the project design. Since the project is not located in a Criteria Cell, and not near any lands identified for MSHCP conservation, this section of the MSHCP does not apply. Therefore, the project would not conflict with Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP.
Section 6.3.2 requires assessments for particular species in designated survey areas. The hospital site and off-site area 1 are not located in a designated survey area and therefore no special assessments are needed for these areas.
The off-site area 2, located at 11510 Magnolia Avenue (APN 132-020-033) however is partially located in a burrowing owl survey area. This site is completely surrounded by existing residential development to the west and east and Magnolia Avenue along the north and the 91 Freeway to the south. This off-site parking area site has been previously graded and disturbed from past development to the west, and half of the off-site area is paved. There is ruderal vegetation on site which appears to be regularly mowed/disked. The site does not support suitable burrowing owl habitat and therefore does not require focused surveys. Based on the lack of suitable habitat thereby eliminating the need for focused surveys, the Project will not conflict with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.
As a signatory to the MSHCP, the City adopted Ordinance No. 6709 (which is codified as Chapter 16.72 of the Riverside Municipal Code) and established a Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) to be used by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) to implement the MSHCP. The Project will participate in the MSHCP through the payment of the LDMF at the time building permits are issued pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 6709. Payment of MSHCP impact fees will also ensure the City’s compliance with the MSHCP.
The project lies outside of the SKR HCP Core Reserves. To be compliant with SKR HCP, the Project applicant will be required to pay the SKR preservation fee in effect at the time of grading permits.
The project would have a less than significant impact on the provisions of the MSHCP and the SKR HCP. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Table 5.5-A – Historical Districts and Neighborhood Conservation Areas; Riverside Municipal Code Appendix D, Title 20; Cultural Resources Inventory, prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc. (Appendix C))
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Cultural resources include places, objects, and settlements that reflect group or individual religious, archaeological, architectural, or paleontological activities.
Such resources provide information on scientific progress, environmental adaptations, group ideology, or other human advancements. By statute, CEQA is primarily concerned with two classes of cultural resources: “historical resources,” which are defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5; and “unique archaeological resources,” which are defined in PRC Section 21083.2. This section Initial Study 52 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
addresses the proposed project’s potential impacts in relation to historical and archaeological resources. Project impacts to tribal cultural resources are evaluated in Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study.
The analysis in this section is based on the Cultural Resources Inventory (March 2021) prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc. (ECORP). Due to the sensitive and confidential nature of cultural resources, portions of the report have been redacted (Appendix C).
ECORP conducted a cultural resources inventory consisting of a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search, a search of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), a field survey of the primary project area, and a field visit of the proposed off-site areas. On February 26, 2021, ECORP conducted a pedestrian survey of the project area and the two proposed off-site areas located on Magnolia Avenue. Note that the off-site areas were not subjected to an intensive pedestrian survey but were examined briefly from the edge of the public right-of-way and through historical aerial photographs and maps.
No subsurface investigations or artifact collections were undertaken during the pedestrian survey.
According to the Cultural Resources Inventory, 28 previous cultural resource investigations were conducted within 1 mile of the project area between 1994 and 2016. The CHRIS records search also determined that 16 previously recorded cultural resources are located within 1 mile of the project area (refer to Table 1 in Appendix C). Previously recorded resources comprise four pre-contact sites, eleven historic-period sites and features, and one multi-component site. No previously recorded resources are located within the project area (Appendix C).
The proposed project does not involve the restoration, rehabilitation, alteration, or demolition of a historical resource as defined under Section 15064.5 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. ECORP used archival research to evaluate potential historic-period resources using National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historic Resources eligibility criteria. The archival research did not find resources eligible or listed properties within the project area or one-mile vicinity. Additionally, no resources were identified as listed as California Historical Landmarks. Due to the disturbed and developed nature of the project area, there is a low potential for historicperiod resources to exist subsurface. As such, development of the project site as proposed would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
However, there is the potential that unknown resources on the site may have been obscured by pavement or other materials over the years. As such, the potential exists for unknown historic resources or properties to be present and project construction activities may potentially impact unknown historical sites within the project area.
Mitigation measures MM Cult 1, MM Cult 2, and MM Cult 3 will be implemented to reduce impacts to unknown cultural resources.
MM Cult 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 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.
Initial Study 53 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
MM Cult 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 and a Society to monitor all grounddisturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources.
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 noted in mitigation measure MM Cult 3 MM Cult 3: 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 Archaeological Monitoring Plan.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated as MM Cult 1, MM Cult 2, and MM Cult 3 directly, indirectly and cumulatively and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. However, MM Cult 1, MM Cult 2, and MM Cult 3 will be added to the Effects Found Not Significant in the forthcoming EIR and MM Cult 1, MM Cult 2, and MM Cult 3 will be added to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program as part of the Final EIR. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5 of
the CEQA Guidelines?
5b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.5-1 – Archaeological Sensitivity; Cultural Resources Inventory, prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc. (Appendix C)) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Response 5a, above. The analysis in this section is based on the Cultural Resources Inventory (March 2021) prepared by ECORP. Due to the sensitive and confidential nature of cultural resources, portions of the report have been redacted (Appendix C).
Initial Study 54 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The potential to discover archeological resources on-site is considered low. However, it is possible that unknown resources on the site may have been obscured by pavement or other materials over the years. As such, the potential exists for unknown archaeological resources to be present and project construction activities may impact unknown resources within the project area. As such, mitigation measures MM Cult 1, MM Cult 2, and MM Cult 3 will be implemented to reduce impacts to unknown archeological resources.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated as MM Cult 1, MM Cult 2, and MM Cult 3 directly, indirectly and cumulatively and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. However, MM Cult 1, MM Cult 2 and MM Cult 3 will be added to the Effects Found Not Significant in the forthcoming EIR and MM Cult 1, MM Cult 2, and MM Cult 3 will be added to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program as part of the Final EIR. c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
5c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.5-1 – Archaeological Sensitivity; Cultural Resources Inventory, prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc. (Appendix C)) Potentially Significant Impact. No known cemeteries are located on-site and no such resources were identified during the records searches, consultation efforts, or field survey (Appendix C); refer also to Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources. As stated, due to the existing development of the site the potential to discover unknown cultural resources is considered low. The same conclusion applies to the two off-site lots located at 10821 Magnolia Avenue (APN 142-293-028) and 11510 Magnolia Avenue (APN 132-020-033).
The proposed project would comply with regulatory requirements for treatment of Native American human remains contained in California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and California Public Resource Code (PRC) Section 5097. These regulations prohibit the interference with any human remains or “cause severe irreparable damage to any Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site or sacred shrine.” If human remains are found during construction, all work must halt and a qualified archaeologist must contact the city and shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance. Through compliance with existing regulations, impacts with regard to disturbing humans will be less than significant. Therefore, this impact will not be analyzed in the EIR.
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: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data (Appendix B), Energy Calculations (Appendix K))
Less Than Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Appendix F is an advisory document that assists in determining whether a project would result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.
The analysis relies upon Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines to determine whether the project would exceed the above threshold.
This analysis focuses on three sources of energy that are relevant to the proposed project: electricity, natural gas, Initial Study 55 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
and fuel for off-road equipment and vehicle trips associated with project construction and operations. The project’s estimated electricity and natural gas consumption is based primarily on CalEEMod’s default setting for Riverside County, and consumption factors provided by Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) and the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) (the electricity and natural gas providers, respectively, for Riverside County, including the project site). The results of the CalEEMod modeling and energy usage calculations are included in Appendix B. The amount of operational fuel consumption was estimated using CARB’s EMission FACtor Model 2017 (EMFAC2017) computer program, which provides projections for typical daily fuel usage in Riverside County, and the project’s annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) outputs from CalEEMod. The estimated construction fuel consumption is based on the project’s construction equipment list, timing/phasing, and duration of use.
Construction-Related Energy Consumption
Project construction would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment; and (2) bound energy in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials such as lumber and glass.
Fossil fuels for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment would be used during demolition, grading, and construction. The project’s fuel consumption from construction would be approximately 304,648 gallons, which would increase fuel use in the County by 0.1530 percent. As such, construction would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies and would not require additional capacity.
Some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with state requirements that equipment not in use for more than five minutes be turned off. Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest US Environmental Protection Agency and CARB engine emissions standards. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. In addition, due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and developers have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction.
Reductions in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by selecting green building materials composed of recycled materials that require less energy to produce than non-recycled materials. The integration of green building materials can help reduce environmental impacts associated with the extraction, transport, processing, fabrication, installation, reuse, recycling, and disposal of these building industry source materials. It is noted that construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment, building materials, or methods that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or state.
Therefore, it is not expected that fuel energy and construction materials consumed during construction would represent a significant demand on energy resources. Therefore, project construction would not use energy in a wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary manner and would result in a less than significant impact to energy resources and this impact will not be analyzed in the EIR.
Operational Energy Consumption
Transportation Energy Demand
Pursuant to the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards.
Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, Initial Study 56 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
compliance is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. Project operations are estimated to consume approximately 195,681 gallons of fuel per year, which would increase the County’s automotive fuel consumption by 0.0247 percent. The project would not have any unusual characteristics that would result in excessive operational fuel consumption.
The key drivers of transportation-related fuel consumption are job locations/commuting distance and many personal choices on when and where to drive for various purposes. As these factors are speculative in nature, providing a quantitative estimate on operational transportation energy demand is outside the scope of this analysis.
However, as the proposed project would expand hospital services on-site, local residents may be able to be treated at the proposed hospital expansion instead of driving to a different hospital in a different city or county. This would decrease transportation energy demand as patients would drive a shorter distance to be treated.
Additionally, the project would include EV charging stations in compliance with the most current CALGreen Code. This project design feature would encourage and support the use of EVs by the employees and visitors of the proposed project and thus reduce the petroleum fuel consumption. Further, the project would encourage use of alternative transportation modes by providing ridesharing parking spaces and bicycle parking spaces on-site, which would also reduce project-related vehicle trips and associated transportation fuel consumption. Therefore, the project would not cause a wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary use of energy in this respect and would result in a less than significant impact to energy resources based on operational transportation and this impact will not be analyzed in the EIR.
Building Energy Demand
The California Energy Commission (CEC) is required to develop an Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) every two years. The CEC developed 2018 to 2030 forecasts for energy consumption and peak demand in support of the 2017 IEPR for each of the major electricity and natural gas planning areas and the state based on the economic and demographic growth projections. The CEC forecasts that the statewide annual average growth rates of energy demand between 2016 and 2030 would be 0.99 percent to 1.59 percent for electricity and 0.25 percent to 0.77 percent for natural gas.
The project would consume energy for interior and exterior lighting, heating/ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) units, refrigeration, electronics systems, appliances, and security systems. The project would be designed to meet or exceed requirements of the most current Title 24 Part 6 and Part 11 (CALGreen Code), and to implement green building strategies across several categories to meet the LEED Gold standard or better. LEED is a rating system developed by the US Green Building Council that serves as a guide for the design, construction, and operation of sustainable green buildings. Buildings are awarded points for environmentally significant practices and sustainable features. It is noted that since 2013, all major building projects constructed by Kaiser Permanente are required to be rated as the second highest (i.e., LEED Gold) of the four LEED rating levels, or better. As such, the proposed hospital building and parking structure would be developed to the LEED Gold standard or better. Energy-saving features incorporated into the proposed development would include energysaving lighting and mechanical systems. Implementation of the most current Title 24 standards would significantly reduce project-related energy usage (30 percent reduction for nonresidential uses) when compared to the 2016 standards. The Title 24 standards are updated every three years and become more stringent with each update; therefore, complying with the latest Title 24 standards would make the proposed project more energy efficient than existing buildings built under the earlier versions of the Title 24 standards.
Furthermore, the California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators in California to increase procurement from eligible Initial Study 57 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
renewable energy resources to 60 percent of total procurement by the end of 2030 pursuant to SB 350. Per the RPU’s 2018 Integrated Resource Plan (2018 IRP), it is anticipated that 43.8 percent of the RPU’s electricity would come from carbon-free resources by 2022, significantly higher than the mandated 36.4 percent. Therefore, the RPU is on track to achieve the RPS goals. Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources that are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. The increase in reliance of such energy resources further ensures that new development projects would not result in the waste of the finite energy resources.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the project’s building energy use would not cause wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary use of energy and would not result in less than significant impact to energy resources and this impact will not be analyzed in the EIR.
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
6b. Response: (Source: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Energy Data (Appendix B); Energy Calculations (Appendix K), City of Riverside Restorative Growthprint - Economic Prosperity Action Plan and Climate Action Plan, January 2016)
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Riverside’s General Plan Air Quality Element identifies objectives and policies that indirectly increase energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption in the City. Additionally, the City’s Riverside Restorative Growthprint consists of the City’s Economic Prosperity Action Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP), which work in conjunction to spur entrepreneurship and smart growth while advancing the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction goals through the year 2035. CAP Table B.3-2, 2020 and 2035 Reductions from Local Measures, lists local GHG reduction measures that indirectly increase energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption.
As stated in Response 8b, below, the project complies with the regulations and GHG reduction goals, policies, actions, and strategies outlined in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, General Plan, and the City’s CAP (see pp. 18-24 of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum, contained in Appendix F).
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and this issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR. .
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 PS-1 – Regional Fault Zones; Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Hospital Expansion (Appendix D); and Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Parking Structure (Appendix E))
Initial Study 58 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than Significant Impact. Seismic activity is to be expected in Southern California. As shown in the City’s General Plan Public Safety Element, Figure PS-1 Regional Fault Zones, there are no Alquist-Priolo zones in the City. The project site does not contain any known fault lines and the closest active fault to the site is the Elsinore fault zone located approximately 6.9 miles to the southwest. As such, the potential for fault rupture or seismic shaking is low. Compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) regulations would ensure that project implementation would result in no impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
7ii. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-1 – Regional Fault Zones; Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Hospital Expansion (Appendix D); and Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Parking Structure (Appendix E))
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 7i, above. The Elsinore Fault Zone, located in the southern portion of the City’s Sphere of Influence, and the San Jacinto Fault Zone, located in the northeastern portion of the City, have the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause intense ground shaking.
However, as the proposed project would comply with CBC regulations, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
7iii. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-1 – Regional Fault Zones, and Figure PS-2 – Liquefaction Zones; Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Hospital Expansion (Appendix D); and Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Parking Structure (Appendix E)) Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a process whereby strong seismic ground shaking causes sediment layers that are saturated with groundwater to lose solidity and behave as a liquid. Factors influencing a site’s potential for liquefaction include area seismicity, on-site soil type and consistency, and groundwater level.
Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations. Seismically induced settlement may occur whether the potential for liquefaction exists or not. As shown in the City’s General Plan Public Safety Element, Figure PS-2 – Liquefaction Zones, the project site is located in an area designated with a high potential for liquefaction.
Liquefaction analysis of the soils underlying the site was performed by Twining utilizing limited subsurface information from borings and other modeling inputs based upon known seismic and groundwater conditions. An additional geotechnical study was conducted to evaluate the project’s parking structure. According to the project’s geotechnical study, groundwater was encountered at 57.5 feet during boring. It should be noted that groundwater conditions may vary across the site due to stratigraphic and hydrologic conditions and may change over time as a consequence of seasonal and meteorological fluctuations, or of activities by humans at this and nearby sites. For the purpose of this investigation, the historically highest groundwater for this project site can be assumed at approximately 12.5 feet.
The liquefaction analysis in the geotechnical studies found low-density, non-plastic, and low plasticity alluvium layers that are susceptible to liquefaction on the project site. These results indicate that during strong earthquake events if liquefaction were to occur at the site, it would occur within localized zones at depths 20 feet or greater.
Seismic settlements would also occur within localized zones at depths of 20 feet or greater. Due to the lack of horizontally continuous liquefiable layers and the presence of 20 feet or more of overlying cohesive soils, the liquefaction hazard at the site is considered low. Total seismic settlement at the ground surface is expected to be less than 1 inch, and the differential settlement would be less than 0.5 inches over a horizontal distance of 50 feet.
Initial Study 59 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
As a result, the project is not anticipated to directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Impacts would be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. iv. Landslides?
7iv. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.6-1 – Areas Underlain by Steep Slope; Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Hospital Expansion (Appendix D); and Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Parking Structure (Appendix E)) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area with generally flat topography. As shown in the City’s General Plan 2025 FPEIR, Figure 5.6-1 Areas Underlain by Steep Slope, the project site is not located in an area prone to landslides. Considering the site is relatively flat and not close to significant slopes, the potential for earthquake-induced landslides to occur at the site is considered very low. Therefore, there would be no impact related to landslides. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 7b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.6-1 – Areas Underlain by Steep Slope; Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Hospital Expansion (Appendix D); and Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Parking Structure (Appendix E)) Less Than Significant Impact. Erosion and loss of topsoil could occur as a result of the project. State and federal requirements call for the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) establishing erosion and sediment controls for construction activities. The project must also comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. In addition, with the erosion control standards for which all development activity must comply (Title 18), the Grading Code (Title 17) requires the implementation of measures designed to minimize soil erosion. Compliance with state and federal requirements as well as with Titles 18 and 17 would ensure that soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be a less than significant impact directly, indirectly, and cumulatively. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 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, and 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, and Table 5.6-B – Soil Types; and Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Hospital Expansion (Appendix D) and Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Parking Structure (Appendix E)) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area and the general topography of the subject site is flat. The project site is currently developed with existing structures and parking lots. As stated in Response 7iv, the project site is not located in an area prone to landslides. Lands affected by the proposed improvements and adjacent lands are generally flat and have a low potential for landslides to occur.
As stated in Response 7iii, due to the lack of horizontally continuous liquefiable layers and the presence of 20 feet or more of overlying cohesive soils, the liquefaction hazard at the site is considered low. Total seismic Initial Study 60 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
settlement at the ground surface is expected to be less than 1 inch, and the differential settlement would be less than 0.5 inches over a horizontal distance of 50 feet.
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which large blocks of intact, non-liquefied soil move down slope on a liquefied soil layer. Lateral spreading is often a regional event. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable soil zone must be laterally continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along sloping ground. According to the Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Hospital Expansion, the potential of liquefaction-induced lateral spread at the Project site is considered remote because the site has low liquefaction potential, does not have a sloping ground, and is not adjacent to a slope. Therefore, lateral spreading is not anticipated.
Collapse occurs when unsaturated soil becomes wetted to the point that the overall settlement of the affected soil and overlying foundations or improvements cannot be supported. Potentially compressible soils underlying the site would typically be removed and recompacted during remedial site grading. Conformance with City’s Grading and Subdivision Codes as well as the CBC would ensure collapse does not occur on-site.
As discussed above, lands affected by the proposed improvements have varying potential to become unstable and result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. However, project conformance with CBC requirements and recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Twining would ensure that impacts would remain less than significant. Recommendations from the Geotechnical analysis include general standards of care related to site preparation, excavation, backfill placement, compaction, and corrosion testing. No unique or significant recommendations were identified in the Twining report. As a result, the project is not anticipated to directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Impacts would be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 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: Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Hospital Expansion (Appendix D) and Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Parking Structure (Appendix E)) Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soil is defined in the CBC.
Based on field exploration and laboratory test results in the project’s geotechnical reports, the risk of soil expansion is low. As soils on site are not expansive, the project would not result in a new potential hazard or exacerbate an existing hazardous soil condition. Compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation report and applicable provisions of the City’s Subdivision Code- Title 18 and the CBC with regard to soil hazards related to the expansive soils would ensure a less than significant impact related to expansive soils. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
7e. Response: (Source: Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Hospital Expansion (Appendix D) and Geotechnical Investigation Report, Proposed Parking Structure (Appendix E)) Initial Study 61 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
No Impact. The proposed project would be served by sewer infrastructure. Therefore, the project would have no impact.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
7f. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Historic Preservation Element and Native Soils Memorandum (Appendix L))
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
The project is located on a previously developed site within an urbanized area. The project would require site preparation activities to prepare the site for grading, such as the removal of utility lines, asphalt, concrete, vegetation, topsoil, and other deleterious debris from areas to be graded. Grading would be accomplished with scrapers, motor graders, water trucks, dozers, and compaction equipment. Building materials would be off-loaded and installed using small cranes, boom trucks, forklifts, rubber-tired loaders, rubber-tired backhoes, and other small to medium-sized construction equipment as needed.
The majority of earthwork would be required during the construction of the basement for the new hospital tower.
The total depth of excavation for the basement construction is anticipated to be up to 20 feet below the existing ground surface. Project earthwork would require approximately 70,650 cubic yards of cut and 18,500 cubic yards of fill; thus, approximately 51,150 cubic yards of soil import would be required. The Project site is underlain by young (Holocene-aged) alluvial fan deposits, which have a low potential to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. However, the younger sediments may overlie older Pleistocene sediments, which have a high potential to contain paleontological resources. Thus, due to the depth of excavation required for basement construction, there is a potential for an inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources. To reduce potential impacts to unique paleontological resources to the Project will implement mitigation measure MM Geo 1.
MM Geo 1: Should any paleontological resource(s) be accidentally discovered during construction, construction activities shall be moved to other parts of the construction site and a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to determine the significance of the resource(s). If the find is determined to be a unique paleontological resource, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, then a mitigation program shall be developed in accordance with the provisions of CEQA as well as the guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010).
The paleontologist (or designee(s)) shall wash any collected samples of sediments to recover small invertebrate and vertebrate fossils. Recovered specimens shall be prepared so that they can be identified and permanently preserved. Specimens shall be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage to allow further research in the future (e.g., Western Science Center, Raymond Alf Museum, or the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County). The cost of curation is assessed by the repository and is the responsibility of the landowner. If specimens are found, the qualified paleontologist shall prepare a report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens, upon completion of all Project fieldwork. The report shall include a discussion of the significance of all recovered specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the City of Riverside Planning Division, shall signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report will also be submitted to the curation facility.
Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated, directly or indirectly, on a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. This topic will not be further Initial Study 62 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
analyzed in the EIR. However, MM Geo 1 will be added to the Effects Found Not Significant in the forthcoming EIR and MM Geo 1 will be added to the mitigation monitoring and reporting program as part of the Final EIR.
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: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum (Appendix F); City of Riverside Restorative Growthprint - Economic Prosperity Action Plan and Climate Action Plan, January 2016)
Less Than Significant Impact. The analysis in this section is based on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum (2021) prepared by Michael Baker International. For more information on the environmental setting, assumptions, and methods used in this analysis, please refer to Appendix F of this Initial Study.
Climate change is an inherently cumulative category of impact. No one project will cause climate change; rather, it is the agglomeration of all global emissions that causes harm. To help address its contribution to the cumulative issue, the state of California has elected to reduce GHG emissions at the state level for activities under its control and has promulgated policy for local agencies to do the same.
The proposed project would result in direct and indirect emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4, and would not result in other forms of GHGs that would facilitate a meaningful analysis. Therefore, this analysis focuses on these three forms of GHG emissions. Direct project related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from energy consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation.3 CalEEMod was used to calculate direct and indirect project related GHG emissions. Table 10, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, presents the estimated CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions of the existing uses and the proposed project. CalEEMod outputs are contained within Appedix F.
Table 10, Annual Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source6
CO2 CH4 N2O Total
Metric
Tons of
CO2e3
Metric
Tons/yr1
Metric
Tons/yr1
Metric
Tons of
CO2e/yr2
Metric
Tons/yr1
Metric
Tons of
CO2e/yr2
Direct Emissions
Construction5 131.47 0.01 0.37 0.01 2.14 133.97
Area Source 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04
Mobile Source4 1,131.45 0.12 2.98 0.07 21.96 1,156.39
Total Direct Emissions3 1,257.50 0.13 3.34 0.08 23.84 1,290.40 Indirect Emissions
Energy 3,180.72 0.12 3.03 0.04 10.46 3,194.20
Solid Waste 349.05 20.63 515.70 0.00 0.00 864.75
3 According to EPA, Scope 1 GHG emissions are direct emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the Agency, including on-site fossil fuel combustion and fleet fuel consumption. Scope 2 GHG emissions are indirect emissions from sources that are not owned or controlled by the Agency, including emissions that result from the generation of electricity, heat or steam purchased by the Agency from a utility provider.
Initial Study 63 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Water Demand 157.79 1.05 26.23 0.03 7.60 191.22
Total Indirect Emissions3 3,687.55 21.80 544.96 0.06 18.06 4,250.56 Total Project-Related Emissions3 5,540.96 MTCO2e/yr
Notes:
MTCO2e/yr = Metric Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent per year
1. Emissions calculated using the CalEEMod version 2020.4.0.
2. Consistent with CalEEMod version 2020.4.0, carbon dioxide equivalent values were calculated using global warming potentials from the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, https://www.ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/Global-Warming-PotentialValues%20%28Feb%2016%202016%29_1.pdf, accessed February 24, 2021.
3. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.
4. The mobile source emissions were calculated using the trip generation and VMT data provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis, Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion prepared by LSA Associates (dated June 2021).
5. Total project construction GHG emissions equate to 4,019.21 MTCO2e. Value shown is amortized over the lifetime of the project (assumed to be 30 years).
Refer to Appendix F, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Data, for detailed model input/output data.
The City has not adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions. Nor have the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), CARB, or any other State or regional agency adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing GHG emissions that is applicable to the project. Since there is no applicable adopted or accepted numerical threshold of significance for GHG emissions, the methodology for evaluating the project’s impacts related to GHG emissions focuses on its consistency with Statewide, regional, and local plans adopted for the purpose of reducing and/or mitigating GHG emissions. This evaluation of consistency with such plans is the sole basis for determining the significance of the project’s GHGrelated impacts on the environment.
As shown in Response 8b, below, the project does not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Consistency with these plans would reduce the impact of the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions. Therefore, the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
8b. Response: (Source: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum (Appendix F); City of Riverside Restorative Growthprint - Economic Prosperity Action Plan and Climate Action Plan, January 2016)
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 8a, above. The analysis in this section is based on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum (2021) prepared by Michael Baker International. For more information on the environmental setting, assumptions, and methods used in this analysis, please refer to Appendix F of this Initial Study.
The GHG plan consistency for the project is based on the project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the City’s CAP, and applicable General Plan goals and policies. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update describes the approach the State will take to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2030. The SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes strategies for the region to reach the regional target of reducing GHG from the transportation sector. The City’s CAP and General Plan contain Initial Study 64 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
strategies, goals, and policies that would help implement energy efficient, transportation, water efficient, and waste reduction measures and would subsequently reduce GHG emissions within the City.
The project’s characteristics render it consistent with statewide, regional, and local climate change mandates, plans, policies, and recommendations. More specifically, the GHG plan consistency analysis provided above demonstrates that the project complies with the regulations and GHG reduction goals, policies, actions, and strategies outlined in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, General Plan, and the City’s CAP (see pp. 18-24 of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum, contained in Appendix F). Consistency with these plans would reduce the impact of the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions.
Accordingly, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, regulation, or recommendation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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; California Health and Safety Code, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations; California Building Code; Riverside Fire Department Emergency Operations Plan, 2002 and Riverside Operational Area – Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2004 Part 1, OEM’s Strategic Plan)
Less Than Significant Impact. The routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials can result in potential hazards to the public through accidental release. Such hazards are typically associated with certain types of land uses, such as chemical manufacturing facilities, industrial processes, waste disposal, and storage and distribution facilities. However, the proposed project would include the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operations, specifically the disposal of medical waste.
Project construction activities could result in the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as gasoline fuels, asphalt, lubricants, paint, and solvents. Although care will be taken to transport, use, and dispose of small quantities of these materials by licensed professionals, there is a possibility that upset or accidental conditions may arise that could release hazardous materials into the environment. Accidental releases of hazardous materials are those releases that are unforeseen or that result from unforeseen circumstances, while reasonably foreseeable upset conditions are those release or exposure events that can be anticipated and planned for.
Project construction activities would occur in accordance with all applicable local standards adopted by the City of Riverside, as well as state and federal health and safety requirements intended to minimize hazardous materials risk to the public, such as Cal/OSHA requirements, the Hazardous Waste Control Act, the California Accidental Release Protection Program, and the California Health and Safety Code.
Stormwater runoff from the site, under both construction and post-construction development conditions, would be avoided through compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations administered by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The project is required to prepare and implement a Construction General Storm Water Permit and stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) (refer to Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality). The SWPPP is also required as part of the grading Initial Study 65 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
permit submittal package. The contractor would be required to implement such regulations relative to the transport, handling, and disposal of any hazardous materials, including the use of standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid or minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local and state laws.
As mentioned above, the project would produce medical waste and other hazardous materials related to hospital operations, such as chemicals used in treatments for chemotherapy and certain pharmaceuticals. The existing hospital operations produce approximately 60,000 lbs per month of medical waste and 1,000 lbs of additional Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) materials, which are disposed through a local waste collection vendor, Stericycle. After Project completion it is estimated that an additional 35,000 lbs of medical waste and 1,500 lbs of RCRA materials will be produced per month. Additionally, minimal amounts of solid waste may be generated from periodic operation and maintenance activities.
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, including but not limited to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, and in cooperation with the County’s Department of Environmental Health. As required by California Health and Safety Code Section 25507, a business shall establish and implement a Hazardous Materials Business Emergency Plan for emergency response to a release or threatened release of a hazardous material in accordance with the standards prescribed in the regulations adopted pursuant to Section 25503 if the business handles a hazardous material or a mixture containing a hazardous material that has a quantity, at any one time, above the thresholds described in Section 25507(a)(1) through (6).
A Hazardous Material Business Emergency Plan has already been adopted and implemented for the existing operations on-site. The proposed project would amend the existing plan to cover the operations and maintenance activities proposed by the project. The proposed project would amend the existing plan to cover the operations and maintenance activities proposed by the project. The amended plan would be reviewed and approved by the City to verify compliance with federal, State, and local regulations. As such, with implementation of the amended plan the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact.
Compliance with all applicable local, State and federal laws should ensure a less than significant impact from routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 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; GP 2025 FPEIR Tables 5.7 A – D, California Health and Safety Code, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, California Building Code, City of Riverside’s EOP, 2002 and Riverside Operational Area – Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP, and 2004 Part 1, OEM’s Strategic Plan edit as necessary
Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction activities could result in the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as gasoline fuels, asphalt, lubricants, paint, and solvents. Although care would be taken to transport, use, and dispose of small quantities of these materials by licensed professionals, there is a possibility that upset or accidental conditions may arise that could release hazardous materials into the environment.
Initial Study 66 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Accidental releases of hazardous materials are those releases that are unforeseen or that result from unforeseen circumstances, while reasonably foreseeable upset conditions are those release or exposure events that can be anticipated and planned for.
Project construction activities would occur in accordance with all applicable local standards adopted by the City of Riverside, as well as state and federal health and safety requirements intended to minimize hazardous materials risk to the public, such as Cal/OSHA requirements, the Hazardous Waste Control Act, the California Accidental Release Protection Program, and the California Health and Safety Code.
As mentioned above, the project would produce medical waste and other hazardous materials related to hospital operations, such as chemicals used in treatments for chemotherapy and certain pharmaceuticals. Adherence to existing regulations would ensure compliance with safety standards related to the use and storage of hazardous materials and with the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Project conformance with existing local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to the release of hazardous materials would ensure that potential to 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 would be low. Therefore, operational impacts would be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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; City of Riverside, Hazardous Materials Business Plans, https://riversideca.gov/fire/divisions/prevention/hazardousmaterials-business-plans, California Building Code, Fire Code, and Health and Safety Code; Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations)
Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest school is La Sierra High School, which is approximately one-third mile (1,550 feet) from the project site. Although hazardous materials and/or waste would be generated from the proposed development, specifically medical waste, the hospital is required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Fire Code and any additional regulations as required in the California Health and Safety Code Article 1 Chapter 6.95 for the Business Emergency Plan. As mentioned in Response 9a, above, a Hazardous Material Business Emergency Plan has already been adopted and implemented for the existing operations on-site. The proposed project would amend the existing plan to cover the operations and maintenance activities proposed by the project. The amended plan would be reviewed and approved to verify compliance with federal, State, and local regulations. As such, adherence to the amended plan would not result in a significant impact.
Given the distance to the nearest school and compliance with existing federal and state regulations, impacts associated with the exposure of schools to hazardous materials caused by this project would be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 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?
Initial Study 67 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9d. Response: (Source: State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker Database, accessed May 2021) No Impact. According to Figure PS-5, Hazardous Waste Site, in the City’s General Plan, the project site is not identified as a known hazardous site.
GeoTracker is an online database created by the State Water Resources Control Board that provides records for sites that require cleanup, such as Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites, Department of Defense Sites, and Cleanup Program Sites. GeoTracker also contains records for various unregulated projects as well as permitted facilities including Irrigated Lands, Oil and Gas production, operating Permitted USTs, and Land Disposal Sites.
According to the GeoTracker, the project site does not contain known hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Furthermore, no known sites occur within one-quarter mile of the project site. According to the CalEPA Regulated Site Portal, an underground storage tank (UST) is located on-site. A UST is a facility overseen by local agencies that stores hazardous materials in underground storage tanks. There are no known violations for the UST on-site, such as leaks or spills. With compliance with all applicable local, State and federal laws, construction of the project is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to the UST on-site.
As noted in Response 9a, above, a Hazardous Material Business Emergency Plan has already been adopted and implemented for the existing operations on-site. The proposed project would amend the existing plan to cover the operations and maintenance activities proposed by the project. The amended plan would be reviewed and approved by the City to verify compliance with federal, State, and local regulations. As such, the project amended plan would not result in a significant impact.
As the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and there will be no impact in this regard. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 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-6 – Airport Safety Zones and Influence Areas) No Impact. The project site is not located within 2 miles of a private or public airport. The closest airport is the Riverside Municipal Airport, located approximately 3 miles north of the project site. The site is not within the Riverside Municipal Airport Influence Area. The project site is not located in an airport land use plan area or compatibility zone. Therefore, the project would have no impact resulting in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Initial Study 68 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9f. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Chapter 7.5.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials; City of Riverside Emergency Operations Plan, 2002 and Riverside Operational Area – Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP, 2004 Part 1, and OEM’s Strategic Plan)
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not impede existing emergency response plans for the project area. As shown in Figure 6, Site Circulation a new plaza with a patient drop-off canopy would be constructed south of the existing hospital building and would connect to the existing driveway off of Park Sierra Drive. A tech dock connected to the northeast side of the proposed new tower with access from Polk Street would also be constructed. An additional right-in and right-out driveway off of Magnolia Avenue would also be constructed for use by emergency vehicles only.
The project would not result in closures of local roadways that may have an effect on emergency response or evacuation plans in the vicinity of the project site. It is anticipated that all local roadways would remain open during project construction and operation. Further, construction activities occurring within the project site would comply with all conditions, including grading permit conditions regarding lay-down and fire access, and would not restrict access for emergency vehicles responding to incidents on the site or in the surrounding area. Two temporary off-site areas have been identified to provide additional parking for Medical Center employees and project construction staff. It is anticipated that all vehicles and construction equipment would be staged on-site, off public roadways, and would not block emergency access routes.
Additionally, the design of Project access and internal circulation routes, as well as the size and location of fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers), would be subject to City standards and conditions of approval. The City Fire Department would also review the proposed development plans prior to project approval to ensure that adequate emergency access and on-site circulation are provided. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not impair or physically interfere with an emergency response plan or evacuation plan.
Impacts would be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 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; Riverside Operational Area – Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP, 2004 Part 1/Part 2 and OEM’s Strategic Plan; California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection – SRA Map, 2007)
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Section 20, Wildfire. The project site is not identified as being in a very high fire hazard severity zone according to the Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the SRA Map produced by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. According to the City’s 2025 General Plan, Figure PS-7 Fire Hazard Areas Map, the project site is not located in a moderate, high, or very high hazard rating area. As such, the project site and lands in the vicinity are generally not subject to the risk of wildfire. Therefore, impacts due to wildfires are considered less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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?
Initial Study 69 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
10a. Response: (Source: Preliminary Technical Drainage Study, prepared by Michael Baker International 2021 (Appendix H) and Preliminary Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by Michael Baker International (Appendix I))
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality for the reasons stated below:
Short-Term Construction
A Preliminary Technical Drainage Study was prepared for the project by Michael Baker International. The majority of the project site is developed with impervious material. Vegetated and pervious areas on-site are predominantly in landscaped areas. A storm drain network exists on-site that collects the majority of surface water. The project site is relatively flat with the site generally draining from the northeast to the southwest. This is depicted in Figure 8, Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan. There is expected to be no off-site flow coming onto the property because the perimeter of the site contains berms. Runoff from the project site will flow via existing storm drains into Arlington Channel, which drains to Temescal Creek Reach 1a and then the Prado Basin Management Zone. The conveyance channels are concrete-lined from Arlington Channel to the point where Temescal Creek outlets into the Prado Basin.
There will be two off-site areas utilized for parking for construction staff and employees during construction .
Runoff will flow via existing storm drains into Arlington Channel and ultimately into Prado Basin.
The hospital expansion site and the off-site areas are located in the Riverside-Arlington groundwater basin (Arlington Groundwater Management Zone [GMZ]). The Prado Basin where project runoff that enters Arlington Channel will have the potential to infiltrate into the ground is located in the Temescal groundwater basin (Temescal GMZ). The California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Santa Ana Region (RWQCB) provides regulatory oversight of water quality in the GMZs.
Potential threats to surface and ground water quality associated with the off-site areas, short-term grading and construction activities include discharges of construction-related sediment and hazardous materials (e.g., fuels).
To ensure that on-site and off-site construction activities do not impair water quality of downstream receiving waters, and because the total land disturbance area is greater than 1 acre, the applicant will obtain coverage under the statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities (i.e., Construction General Permit) which requires preparation of an effective Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a certified Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) and implemented onsite by a certified Qualified SWPPPP Developer (QSD), with annual reporting and monitoring requirements and enforcement by the RWQCB. The SWPPP would address both on-site and off-site areas of land disturbance by listing Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control to minimize to the extent practicable the release of construction-related stormwater and non-stormwater discharges into off-site areas and storm drains. Said BMPs are expected to include silt fencing, gravel bags, stockpile covers, stabilized entrance/exit, secondary containment around hazardous materials, temporary sediment basins, and housekeeping measures to keep construction materials from leaving the boundaries of the project due to rain or wind. Additionally, the SWPPP would contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment (CWA Section 303(d) requires states to identify “impaired” water bodies as those which do not meet water quality standards and states are required to compile this information in a list and submit the list to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for review and approval). Therefore, through Initial Study 70 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
compliance with the NPDES permit and implementation of standard required BMPs, project impacts to surface and ground water quality would be less than significant.
Operations
Potential pollutants discharged to storm drains and downstream water bodies resulting from long-term occupancy and operations of the proposed project include litter, trash, and debris; oil, grease, metals, vehicle hydrocarbons; and sediments, nutrients, pesticides, and fertilizers from landscaped areas. Hospitals are also known to handle biohazardous waste and toxic or hazardous waste.
Under existing conditions, the majority of on-site surface runoff flows to the existing onsite storm drain system that enters the municipal storm drain system. The remaining runoff may infiltrate onsite in landscaped or otherwise pervious areas. As described in the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the proposed project will include post-construction stormwater treatment in the form of five bioretention basins designed for treatment of onsite stormwater runoff generated by the new construction. Water quality infrastructure is also proposed at the two off-site locations. The basins are sized to provide treatment of the unique “water quality volumes” calculated for the areas that drain to each basin. Flows in excess of the water quality volumes will bypass treatment via outlet risers located in each basin that will connect to the existing storm drain system. This is incorporated into the project design pursuant to the NPDES permit for the Riverside County municipal storm drain system. Said permit allows the use of bioretention basins designed according to the WQMP manual and considers them an effective treatment method of incorporating Low Impact Development (LID) into stormwater treatment. The basins will treat stormwater and nuisance runoff with biological uptake in plants, filtering in engineered soil layers, evaporation, and incidental infiltration. Underdrains will convey treated runoff through the basin bottom to the storm drain system.
Through compliance with existing regulations that address operational-phase discharges, project impacts to surface and ground waters will be less than significant. This topic will not be analyzed in the EIR .
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: RPU 2020 Urban Water Management Plan; Preliminary Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by Michael Baker International (Appendix I)) Less than Significant Impact. The project site does not use on-site groundwater or support groundwater wells on-site. The project site is located in the Arlington groundwater basin and would be served by the Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) for domestic water supply. According to RPU’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, RPU’s water supply from 2016 to 2020 has not included groundwater from the Arlington basin (p. 6-7). Because the Arlington basin is not adjudicated, a Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) was developed and currently, a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) is being prepared pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014.
The existing project site is developed with impervious surfaces, such as concrete, and limited landscaping so natural infiltration on-site is considered minimal. Therefore, the project site likely provides minimal groundwater recharge currently. The proposed project will include five new bioretention basins; however, their contribution to groundwater recharge is also expected to be minimal because of the poor infiltration rate of the underlying soils. According to the percolation test results located in the project-specific WQMP, the average infiltration rate with a factor of safety of 3 is 0.6 inch per hour, which is less than that which is needed for effective infiltration Initial Study 71 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
of large amounts of water. The bioretention basins will provide incidental infiltration but most flows will go to the storm drain after treatment.
Although the project will increase the potential for infiltration through the bioretention basins, the existing soil conditions limit the recharge ability of the site. Therefore, the project impacts related to interfering with recharge or a groundwater management plan is not anticipated and impacts are less than significant. This topic will not be analyzed in the EIR.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or-offsite? 10i Response: (Source: Preliminary Technical Drainage Study, Michael Baker International (Appendix H) and Preliminary Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by Michael Baker International (Appendix I))
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river because such features are not present on-site. As indicated in Responses 10a and 10b, the project has been designed to match the existing drainage pattern and the overall impervious cover of the hospital expansion site would be reduced from 509,881 SF to 483,279 SF with project implementation. Impervious surfaces for the proposed off-site areas will be designed to avoid substantial erosion or siltation on- or -off-site.
The project site currently drains via sheet flow, ribbon gutters, and curb and gutter into a storm drain system that outlets to the City’s municipal storm drain system. There are no streams or rivers or other drainage features that would be altered by the project. The proposed project will also drain stormwater and nuisance runoff into the onsite storm drain system and into the municipal storm drain system; however, flows from the project area will be conveyed through bioretention basins for initial treatment prior to release into the storm drain system. During construction, implementation of BMPs as required by the SWPPP would ensure that project construction does not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Post-construction BMPs include five bioretention basins designed for treating storm water runoff generated by the hospital expansion site. Water quality infrastructure is also proposed at the two off-site locations. Because the project site is relatively flat and located in a mostly impervious, urban setting and the proposed project is consistent with the existing uses, the potential for substantial erosion on- or off-site is minimized through the implementation of a SWPPP during construction, and bioretention basins post construction. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a change in drainage patterns that would cause substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, nor substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant. This topic will not be analyzed in the EIR. 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: Preliminary Technical Drainage Study, Michael Baker International (Appendix H) and Preliminary Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by Michael Baker International (Appendix I))
Initial Study 72 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in the Preliminary Technical Drainage Study, the overall impervious surface of the hospital expansion site would be reduced with project implementation. As a result, the calculated post-project peak (flood) flow is less than pre-project peak flow. This means that the project does not need to include storage capacity for mitigating (holding) post-project stormwater peak flows (i.e., up to 100-year storm events), such as a detention basin or underground holding tank. All storm drain pipelines to be built as part of the project will be sized to convey up to a 100-year, 1-hour storm (flood) event. The bioretention basins will be sized to provide the required water quality volume and flows in excess of the water quality volume will bypass treatment and be conveyed in the outlet riser structures located in each basin. The outlet riser structures are sized to convey the proposed 100-year rational flow rates calculated for the area that drains to each respective basin. Thus, proposed condition flow rates would be the same or less than the existing condition and no storage facilities are required. Water quality infrastructure is also proposed at the two off-site locations. Therefore, through project design, impacts in this regard are less than significant. This topic will not be analyzed in the EIR.
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?
10iii Response: (Source: Preliminary Technical Drainage Study, Michael Baker International (Appendix H) and Preliminary Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by Michael Baker International (Appendix I))
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 10c(ii), above. Because the calculated post-project peak (flood) flow rate is less than the existing peak flow rate, the project does not require mitigation for reducing peak flows prior to discharge to the existing storm drain system. This means that the project will not result in runoff volumes that would exceed the capacity of existing storm drain systems. Further, the proposed storm drain pipelines will be sized to handle up to a flood event (100-year storm) and the project will not exceed capacity of the planned storm drain system up to a 100-year storm event. With inclusion of bioretention basins to treat the required water quality volume, the project will also not contribute additional pollutants to downstream waters.
Therefore, through project design and compliance with existing requirements for providing adequately sized storm drain systems, as well as existing regulations to address construction and operational discharges of stormwater pollutants, project impacts in this regard are less than significant. This topic will not be analyzed in the EIR.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
10iv Response: (Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06065C0715G (effective Aug. 28, 2008); California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher; City of Riverside General Plan Public Safety Element; Preliminary Technical Drainage Study, Michael Baker International (Appendix H) and Preliminary ProjectSpecific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by Michael Baker International (Appendix I)) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (map no. 06065C0715G, effective Aug. 28, 2008), the project site is located in “Zone X – Other Flood Areas.” These are defined as “areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood.” Further, the California Department of Water Resources identifies the project site as partially within the dam inundation zones of Mockingbird Canyon Dam and, to a Initial Study 73 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
lesser degree, Harrison Dam. The City of Riverside Municipal Code Section 16.18 does not include Zone X (as shown on said FIRM map) as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), and it is therefore not subject to the City’s requirements pertaining to SFHAs. The property is not required to pay flood insurance within this flood zone designation.
The proposed project will not result in a substantial change to the overall drainage patterns of the Project site.
Also, the Project will not alter the course of a stream or river, and finally the project will not add to the impervious surface area of the site. Therefore, the project is not expected to impede or redirect flood flows as a result of such actions. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. This topic will not be analyzed in the EIR. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
10d. Response: (Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06065C0715G (effective Aug. 28, 2008); California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher; General Plan 2025 FPEIR Chapter 7.5.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality)
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 10c(iv), above. As shown on FEMA FIRM No. 06065C0715G, effective Aug. 28, 2008, the project site is partially located in a flood hazard zone (Zone X) and partially within two dam inundation zones. The City of Riverside Municipal Code Section 16.18 does not include Zone X (as shown on said FIRM map) as a SFHA, and it is therefore not subject to the City’s requirements pertaining to SFHAs. The property is not required to pay flood insurance within this flood zone designation. The Project will not substantially change the overall drainage pattern of the Project site. In the event of inundation, the project would not risk a pollutant release any more than the risk from surrounding properties.
The Project is not located within an identified seiche zone. A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually by earthquake activity. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water. Because of the distance from the proposed project site to surrounding large water bodies and reservoirs, inundation due to seiche is unlikely.
The Project is not located within an identified tsunami zone. Tsunamis are a type of earthquake-induced flooding that is produced by large-scale sudden disturbances of the sea floor and can result in an increased wave height and a destructive wave surge into low-lying coastal areas. Because tsunamis occur in coastal areas and the project is located approximately 35 miles east of the Pacific Ocean, inundation due to tsunami is unlikely.
Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur. This topic will not be analyzed in the EIR. e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
10e. Response: (Source: RWQCB Basin Plan; Riverside Public Utilities 2020 Urban Water Management Plan; Preliminary Technical Drainage Study, Michael Baker International (Appendix H) and Preliminary Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan, prepared by Michael Baker International (Appendix I) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 10a and 10c, above. The local water quality control plan (Basin Plan) outlines the regulatory programs of the RWQCB, which address ground and surface water quality.
Initial Study 74 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Said programs include requirements from various NPDES permits including the Construction General Permit and municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit for post-construction BMPs at new and re-development sites. Because the project applicant would prepare and implement a SWPPP during construction and provide the required post-construction storm water quality treatment, no conflicts or obstructions with the Basin Plan are anticipated.
Western Municipal Water District has prepared a groundwater management plan for the Arlington basin and is in the process of superseding that plan with a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the Arlington basin due to the state by 2022. The GSP will outline projects to ensure the basin is sustainable pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014. The Project’s land uses are consistent with the existing land uses and are unlikely to result in activities that would conflict with the forthcoming GSP.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant. This topic will not be analyzed in the EIR.
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
11a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Land Use and Urban Design Element; Magnolia Avenue Specific Plan; City of Riverside GIS/CADME map layers)
No Impact. The project site currently supports an existing medical center that is highly developed with buildings, parking lots, and pavement. The hospital expansion site is zoned CR-SP - Commercial Retail and Specific Plan (Magnolia Avenue) Overlay Zones and has a land use designation of Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U). The off-site property located at 11510 Magnolia Avenue has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use Village (MUV) and is zoned R-1-7000-SP – Single Family Residential and Specific Plan (Magnolia Avenue) Overlay Zones and CG-SP – Commercial General and Specific Plan (Magnolia Avenue) Overlay Zones. The off-site property located at 10821 Magnolia Avenue has a land use designation of Mixed Use Village (MU-V) and is zoned MUV-SP - Mixed Use Village and Specific Plan (Magnolia Avenue) Overlay Zones. The area surrounding the Project site is highly developed and urbanized with a variety of land uses such as commercial, single-family residential, and medium-high density residential.
Project construction would be limited to lands currently under ownership of Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center. No existing housing is present on any of the lands that would be affected by the proposed improvements and no new roadways or other potential obstructions or barriers are proposed. The proposed project would have no impact on the physical arrangement of an established community. Further, the project is consistent with the General Plan 2025, the Zoning Code, the Subdivision Code and the Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines.
Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 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: General Plan 2025, General Plan 2025 Figure LU-10 – Land Use Policy Map, and Table LU-5 – Zoning/General Plan Consistency Matrix; Magnolia Avenue Specific Plan) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not cause a conflict with the policies or regulations of the General Plan, Magnolia Avenue Specific Plan, and Zoning Code, adopted for the purpose of avoiding or Initial Study 75 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
mitigating an adverse environmental impact. Throughout this Initial Study, consistency with policies adopted for protection of the environment (such as those concerning noise) is addressed by topic area. Therefore, this discussion focuses on policies other than those addressed elsewhere.
As part of the Housing Element 6th Cycle, the City is initiating a rezoning program to change the zone of the offsite area located at 11510 Magnolia Avenue from R-1-7000-SP – Single Family Residential and Specific Plan (Magnolia Avenue) Overlay Zones and CG-SP – Commercial General and Specific Plan (Magnolia Avenue) Overlay Zones to MU-V-SP – Mixed Use Village and Specific Plan (Magnolia Avenue) Overlay Zones for consistency with the existing General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use Village (MU-V).
No change to the existing City land use designations or zoning classifications is required or proposed for the hospital expansion site and the off-site area located at 10821 Magnolia Avenue. Lands affected by the proposed improvements include lands under the ownership of Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center and local roadway rights-of-way.
The project is located within the La Sierra District of the adopted Magnolia Avenue Specific Plan (MASP). The project site is not located within other plan areas. The General Plan 2025 designates several roadways as Scenic Boulevards and Parkways in order to protect scenic resources and enhance the visual character of the City. The proposed project is also located along the Magnolia Avenue corridor, which is designated as a Special Scenic Boulevard in the City’s Circulation and Community Mobility (CCM) Element of the General Plan 2025. As shown in Responses 1a through 1c of the Aesthetic section above, the Project does not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations regarding scenic quality.
Therefore, the proposed project would not 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.
Impacts would be less than significant, and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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: General Plan 2025 Figure OS-1 – Mineral Resources) No Impact. The State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) has established Mineral Resources Zones (MRZs) to designate lands that contain mineral deposits. The classifications used by the state to define MRZs are as follows:
• MRZ-1: Areas where the available geologic information indicates no significant likelihood of significant mineral deposits.
• MRZ-2a: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that there are significant mineral deposits.
• MRZ-2b: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that there is a likelihood of significant mineral deposits.
• MRZ-3a: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits exist; however, the significance of the deposit is undetermined.
• MRZ-3b: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits are likely to exist; however, the significance of the deposit is undetermined. • MRZ-4: Areas where there is not enough information available to determine the presence of a known mineral deposit.
Initial Study 76 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
According to the General Plan 2025 Figure OS-1 – Mineral Resources, portions of the City are located in MRZ2 and MRZ-3 zones. The project site is not located in a designated mining zone. The project does not involve extraction of mineral resources. No mineral resources have been identified on the project site and there is no historical use of the site or surrounding area for mineral extraction purposes. The project site is not, nor is it adjacent to, a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in the General Plan 2025, MASP, or other land use plan.
The Project proposes construction of multiple hospital buildings and a parking structure that would require ground excavation for clearing, but the majority of earthwork would consist of imported fill material. Furthermore, the Project would be constructed on Kaiser Permanente property, which would preclude mining operations from occurring. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. No impacts would occur and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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. Refer to Response 12a. No known mineral resources of local or state importance are located on lands associated with the proposed project. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan 2025 and MASP.
Therefore, no impact would occur and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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 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, Figure N-10 – Noise/Land Use Noise Compatibility Criteria, FPEIR Table 5.11-I – Existing and Future Noise Contour Comparison, Table 5.11-E – Interior and Exterior Noise Standards, Title 7 – Noise Code, and Noise Study (Appendix G))
Less Than Significant Impact. Noise in the City is regulated by the Municipal Code Title 7, Noise Control, which identifies standards, specific noise restrictions, exemptions, and variances for sources of noise in the City.
The analysis in this section is based on the Noise Study (September 13, 2021) prepared by Michael Baker International. For more information on the environmental setting, assumptions, and methods used in this analysis, please refer to Appendix G of this Initial Study. Noise-sensitive land uses are locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Residences, schools, and some passive recreation areas would each be considered noise sensitive. Exhibit 1 of Appendix G shows the nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the predominantly residential neighborhoods located at the northwestern side and southeastern side of the proposed project site. As part of the Technical Memorandum Noise and Groundborne Vibration, ambient noise measurements were taken. The noise measurement sites are representative Initial Study 77 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the project site. The 10-minute short-term measurements were taken at each site between 9:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. Short-term (Leq) measurements are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The noise measurements were taken during “offpeak” (9:00 a.m. through 3:00 p.m.) traffic noise hours as this provides a more conservative baseline for purposes of comparing project-generated noise. Table 11, Noise Measurements, presents the recorded ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.
Table 11, Noise Measurements
Measurement Location Leq
1 (dBA)
Lmax2
(dBA)
Lmin
3 (dBA)
White Oak Drive and Polk Street 58.0 76.2 50.7
Mercer Avenue and Burge Street 51.5 70.8 39.4
Notes: 1
Leq = equivalent sound level 2
Lmax = maximum sound level is the highest individual sound level recorded 3 Lmin = minimum sound level, the lowest individual sound level recorded Source: Table 7, Technical Memorandum Noise and Groundborne Vibration. (Included as Appendix G.)
Project Construction
Construction of the proposed project would involve construction activities such as demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. The temporary construction noise associated with on-site equipment could potentially expose sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of the applicable noise standard and/or result in a noticeable increase in ambient noise levels, and/or an exceedance of daytime hour noise standards. In addition, there would be off-site areas along Magnolia Avenue that would primarily be used for parking. Construction of the off-site parking lots will be temporary and would cease upon completion. However, during construction the Project and off-site locations will be required to adhere to the City’s Municipal Code
7.35.020(G) which requires construction to be limited during daytime hours of 7:00 am- 7:00pm on weekdays and 8:00 am-5:00pm on weekends. Traffic associated with parking lots typically ranges between 53 dBA to 61 dBA , as shown in Table 10 of Appendix G, which is not a sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards identified by the City of Riverside Municipal Code as 65 dBA. Since off-site areas have been dedicated as employee and construction staff parking, traffic associated with the off-site areas would be temporary and nominal.
Typical noise levels generated by construction equipment are shown in Table 12, Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment. It should be noted that the noise levels in maximum sound levels (Lmax) identified in Table 12 are the highest individual sound occurring at an individual time period. Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be due to random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts).
Initial Study 78 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Table 12, Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment Type of Equipment Acoustical Use
Factor1
Lmax at 50 Feet
(dBA)
Lmax at 450 Feet
(dBA)
Concrete Saw 20 90 76
Crane 16 81 65
Concrete Mixer Truck 40 79 65
Backhoe 40 78 64
Dozer 40 82 68
Excavator 40 81 67
Forklift 40 78 64
Paver 50 77 63
Roller 20 80 66
Tractor 40 84 70
Water Truck 40 80 66
Grader 40 85 71
General Industrial Equipment 50 85 71
Note:
1. Acoustical Use Factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation.
Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054), January 2006.
The potential for construction-related noise to affect nearby sensitive receptors would depend on the location and proximity of construction activities to these receptors. The closest sensitive receptors are the single-family residences located to the north of the project site next to the existing parking structure on-site, approximately 250 feet from the nearest project construction area. (see Exhibit 1 of Appendix G) As shown in Table 12, at the distance of 250 feet, construction noise would be reduced to 63 dBA Lmax to 76 dBA Lmax at the closest sensitive receptors. These are the same maximum recorded ambient noise levels (Lmax) shown in Table 11. Thus, the projected maximum construction noise not anticipated to exceed the existing measured maximum noise levels in the project area. Additionally, because construction activities would occur throughout the project construction area, construction noise would not be concentrated in or confined to one specific area of the project site or a specific sensitive use for the entire construction duration.
As shown in Table 7.25.010A of the City’s Municipal Code, the CR land use designation has a noise level standard of 65 dBA. However, per Municipal Code Section 7.35.020(G), noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property; provided a permit has been obtained from the City as required; and provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday are exempt from the noise standards in Table 7.25.010A. Because project construction will comply with the construction time limitations within Municipal Code Section 7.35.020(G), temporary impacts regarding exceeding City noise standards will be less than significant.
Initial Study 79 Case # PR-2021-000713
Project Operations
Off-Site Mobile Noise
The proposed project would result in additional traffic on adjacent roadways from daily activities, thereby increasing vehicular noise in the vicinity of existing and proposed land uses. Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis, Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center Expansion prepared by LSA Associates (June 2021), the project would generate 4,464 average daily trips, including 345 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 349 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The noise levels under “Existing Without Project” and “Existing With Project” scenarios are modeled using Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108). Under the “Existing Without Project” scenario, noise levels at 100 feet from roadway centerline would range from approximately 53.0 dBA to 68.3 dBA, with the highest noise levels occurring along La Sierra Avenue between Montlake Drive/Diana Avenue and SR-91 Westbound Ramps. The “Existing With Project” scenario noise levels at 100 feet from roadway centerline would range from approximately 53.4 dBA to 68.4 dBA, with the highest noise levels also occurring along La Sierra Avenue between Montlake Drive/Diana Avenue and SR-91 Westbound Ramps. The discrepancy between existing without project and existing with project is forecasted to be an increase of 0.1dBA.
Traffic noise associated with the proposed project would result in a maximum increase of 1.0 dBA along Polk Street between Magnolia Avenue and Kaiser Driveway 5. A significant impact would result only if both of the following occur: an exceedance of the normally acceptable noise standards for residential uses (i.e., 60 dBA CNEL) and a perceptible increase in traffic noise levels (i.e., noise increase would be greater than 3.0 dBA).
Although traffic noise levels would exceed 60 dBA CNEL along a majority of the roadway segments under both “Existing Without Project” and “Existing With Project” scenarios in the project area, project-generated average daily trips would not cause a perceptible increase in traffic noise levels (i.e., noise increase would be greater than
3.0 dBA) along any of the surrounding roads. As the project would not cause a perceptible increase in traffic noise levels, the proposed project would not significantly increase noise levels along the roadway segments analyzed. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Stationary Noise
Mechanical Equipment Noise
Anticipated mechanical equipment noise that would be generated by the proposed project would include Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) units. The HVAC units would be installed on the rooftop of the proposed hospital tower. Typically, mechanical equipment noise is 55 dBA at 50 feet from the source. Based upon the Inverse Square Law, sound levels decrease by 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source.
The closest sensitive receptor are single-family residences located to the north of the project site approximately 550 feet from the proposal hospital tower. At this distance, noise levels from the HVAC units would be approximately 34 dBA. Therefore, noise levels from HVAC units would not exceed the City’s residential land use exterior noise level standards of 55 dBA CNEL for daytime and 45 dBA CNEL for nighttime, and interior noise level standards of 45 dBA CNEL for daytime and 35 dBA CNEL for nighttime. In addition, HVAC units associated with the existing buildings on-site are located closer to the nearest sensitive receptor than the proposed building. Thus, project-generated HVAC units noise levels would not introduce a new source of noise when compared to existing conditions, and a less than significant impact would occur.
The project would also include an emergency generator that would only be used during power outages in cases of emergency. The emergency generator would be enclosed in a structure. Additionally, emergency generators already exist on-site, and the proposed generators are necessary to support the proposed project. The emergency generators are a precautionary feature that would only be used sporadically. Based on information on the existing Kaiser Permanente hospital network, it can be conservatively assumed that the emergency generators on-site would be used once every 5-10 years, but it is possible that the generators would not be used at all during this period.
Initial Study 80 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Since the generator would only be operated during emergencies, the generators are not considered a “long-term” noise impact. As such, the emergency generators were not included in the project’s noise analysis in this memorandum as the generators would not represent reasonable conditions. Thus, emergency generators would not introduce a new source of noise when compared to existing conditions, and a less than significant impact would occur.
Parking Lots
The project proposes a new parking structure in the southeast corner of the project site and would reduce and reorganize surface parking areas to accommodate the new hospital tower on the west of the project site.
Traffic associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time-averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. Table 14 of Appendix G shows that 50 feet from the source Parking lot noise can range between 53 dBA to 61dBA. According to the Municipal Code Chapter
7.25.010 the City of Riverside areas zoned as Commercial Retail (CR) have an acceptable noise level of 65dBA at any given time. However, the instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-bys may be an annoyance to adjacent noise-sensitive receptors.
Parking lot activities can result in noise levels of up to 61 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. As there are not any sensitive receptors located within 1,000 feet of the proposed new parking structure, noise from parking lots would not result in a significant impact to sensitive receptors. It is noted that parking lot noise comprises instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the CNEL scale, which are averaged over time. As a result, actual noise levels over time resulting from parking lot activities would be far lower than what is identified in Appendix G of this Initial Study. In addition, the project would not include additional surface parking spaces near the closest sensitive receptor to the north of the project site. Therefore, noise from parking lots would not be different from the existing conditions, and project-generated parking lot noise levels would not introduce a new source of noise when compared to existing conditions. Thus, the impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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, and Noise Study (Appendix G), Federal Transporation Administration- Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf, accessed August 17, 2021) Less Than Significant Impact. The analysis in this section is based on the Noise Study (2021) prepared by Michael Baker International. For more information on the environmental setting, assumptions, and methods used in this analysis, please refer to Appendix G of this Initial Study. Vibration-sensitive land uses are locations where people reside or where there is a potential for damage to structures like buildings and sidewalks. The nearest Initial Study 81 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
structure is a commercial building located to the west of the project site across Magnolia Avenue approximately 170 feet from the project site boundary.
Construction
Project construction can generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and construction equipment. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.
Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time.
Building damage can be cosmetic (e.g., plaster cracks) or structural. The distance at which damage from vibration could be experienced can vary substantially depending on the age and composition of the building structure, soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. For example, buildings that are constructed with typical timber frames and masonry show that a vibration level of up to 0.2 in/sec PPV is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage.4 This evaluation uses the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations at non-engineered timber and masonry buildings of 0.2 in/sec PPV. The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. Typical vibration produced by construction equipment is detailed in Table 1, Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment.
Table 13, Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
Approximate peak
particle velocity at 25
feet (inches/second)1
Approximate peak
particle velocity at 170
feet (inches/second)1
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.0050
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.0043
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.0002
Jackhammer 0.035 0.0020
Notes:
1. Calculated using the following formula:
PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-4 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, September 2018.
Groundborne vibration decreases rapidly with distance. The nearest structure is a commercial building located to the west of the project site across Magnolia Avenue approximately 170 feet from the project’s construction limit. 4 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
Initial Study 82 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
As indicated in Table 13, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment used during project construction would range from 0.0002 (a small bulldozer) to 0.0050 (large bulldozer) in/sec PPV at 170 feet from the source of activity, which would not exceed the FTA’s 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold of architectural damage.
Caltrans has also adopted standards to determine human annoyance resulting from groundborne vibration and groundborne noise. Table 14, Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels, displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings produced by continuous vibration levels. The annoyance levels shown in the table should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those listed, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Lowlevel vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage.
Table 14, Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings
for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels Peak Particle
Velocity
(inches/second)
Approximate
Vibration
Velocity Level
(VdB)
Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.006–0.019 64–74 Range of threshold of perception. Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type.
0.08 87 Vibrations readily perceptible.
Recommended upper level to which
ruins and ancient monuments should
be subjected.
0.1 92
Level at which continuous vibrations
may begin to annoy people, particularly
those involved in vibration sensitive
activities.
Virtually no risk of architectural
damage to normal buildings.
0.2 94 Vibrations may begin to annoy people
in buildings.
Threshold at which there is a risk of
architectural damage to normal
dwellings.
0.4–0.6 98–104
Vibrations considered unpleasant by
people subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable to some
people walking on bridges.
Architectural damage and possibly
minor structural damage.
Source: California Department of Transportation, Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations, 2002.
As indicated in Table 13, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment used during project construction would range from 0.0002 (a small bulldozer) to 0.0050 (large bulldozer) in/sec PPV at 170 feet from the source of activity, which is below the threshold of perception as identified in Table 14, above.
For the reasons set forth in the preceding discussion, vibration impacts associated with construction would be less than significant
Operation
The project proposes to expand the existing medical center with a new hospital tower and parking structure. The operation of the project would involve occasional truck deliveries and trash pick-up, which would potentially generate groundborne vibration. However, the truck operations would be similar to the existing conditions and Initial Study 83 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
would not be substantial. Therefore, the groundborne vibration levels would not be perceptible or felt at surrounding uses. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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?
13c. Response: (Source: Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document, Map RI-1, Compatibility Map, March 2005) No Impact. The closest airport is the Riverside Municipal Airport, located approximately 3 miles north of the project site. The site is not within the Riverside Municipal Airport Influence Area where aircraft noise levels are a concern. Thus, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels, and no impacts would occur in this regard. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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: General Plan 2025 Table LU-3 – Land Use Designations) Less Than Significant Impact. The existing Medical Center supports an operational staff of approximately 3,097 full-time employees and generates approximately 2,521 patient visitors per day. The proposed project would result in the addition of 152 new beds requiring the support of an operational staff of approximately 746 full-time employees. The employees would work in three shifts: day, evening, and night. The day shift supports approximately 439 employees, evening shift approximately 89 employees, and night shift approximately 218 employees. The expanded facilities would generate approximately 535 additional patient visitors per day.
It is assumed that the majority of the new employees would be sourced from the City of Riverside or surrounding communities. However, it is possible that some employees would move to the City. SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS establishes population, housing, and growth trends for the City, Riverside County, and SCAG region. Based on an average household size of 3.28, the project could at most result in an indirect population increase of approximately 2,446 persons. SCAG growth forecasts in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS estimate the City’s population to reach 386,600 persons by 2040, representing a total increase of 75,900 persons between 2012 and 2040. The project’s highest potential indirect population growth (2,446 persons) represents 3 percent of the City’s anticipated population increase by 2040, and less than one percent of the City’s total projected 2040 population.
Additionally, SCAG growth forecasts in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS estimate the City’s employment to reach 200,500 jobs by 2040, representing a total increase of 80,500 jobs between 2012 and 2040. The approximately 746 project-generated jobs represent a one percent of the City’s anticipated jobs increase by 2040, and less than one half of one percent of the City’s total projected 2040 employment. As such, it is not reasonably foreseeable that the project would cause the General Plan buildout population or employment forecasts to be exceeded.
Initial Study 84 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
While the proposed project would expand capacity at the hospital and increase the availability of medical services, the proposed project is not anticipated to induce substantial unplanned population growth either directly (i.e., by proposing construction of new homes or businesses) or indirectly (i.e., through extension of roads or other infrastructure), as the project is intended to serve existing needs of the community. No new residential uses or expansion of utilities are proposed that would contribute to new unplanned growth. Therefore, impacts in this regard are considered to be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
14b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Table LU-3 – Land Use Designations) No Impact. No housing units would be displaced as a result of project construction. The project is limited to the construction of multiple hospital buildings and a parking structure on land that currently supports existing hospital operations. Site improvements would occur within existing roadway rights-of-way or on land owned by the medical center and would not affect any existing people or housing. Therefore, no impact would occur and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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: General Plan FPEIR Table 5.13-B – Fire Station Locations, and Table 5.13-C – Riverside Fire Department Statistics; Ordinance 5948 § 1) Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection services for the project area are provided by the Riverside County Fire Department. The nearest fire station to the project site (Station No. 12) is located approximately 0.5 miles to the southeast at 10692 Indiana Avenue in the City of Riverside.
As mentioned in Response 14a, above, the project would include 746 employees which could conservatively result in an indirect population increase of approximately 2,446 persons. The approximately 746 project-generated jobs represent 0.93 percent of the City’s anticipated jobs increase by 2040, and only 0.37 percent of the City’s total projected 2040 employment. As such, the project would not cause the General Plan buildout population or employment forecasts to be exceeded.
The project would be designed and operated in compliance with applicable federal, State, and local worker safety and fire protection codes and regulations to minimize the potential for occurrence of fire. Project construction activities would be short term and, due to the nature of the proposed improvements, would not substantially increase the risk of fire or the need for fire protection services. The proposed project would implement General Plan 2025 policies pertaining to fire protection, comply with existing codes and standards (California Fire Code Initial Study 85 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
and Riverside Municipal Code Section 16.32.10). The project’s final development plan would also be reviewed and approved by the City’s Fire Prevention Bureau.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the project would not 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, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services.
Impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. b. Police protection?
15b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-8 – Neighborhood Policing Centers, City of Riverside, Riverside Police Department, Operations, Website: https://www.riversideca.gov/rpd/about-contact/officechief/history-and-chiefs, Accessed August 17, 2021 ) Less Than Significant Impact. Police protection services for the project area are provided by the Riverside Police Department. The nearest police station to the project site is located approximately 0.3 miles to the northeast at 10540 Magnolia Avenue in the City of Riverside. As of 2019, the RPD employs 373 sworn police officers, and 147 non-sworn employees. As part of the Riverside Renaissance Initiative, a new Public Safety Administrative building, 911 Dispatch and Data Center and Neighborhood Police Center are proposed in the future.
As mentioned in Response 14a, above, the project would include 746 employees which could conservatively result in an indirect population increase of approximately 2,446 persons. The approximately 746 project-generated jobs represent 0.93 percent of the City’s anticipated jobs increase by 2040, and only 0.37 percent of the City’s total projected 2040 employment. As such, the project would not cause the General Plan buildout population or employment forecasts to be exceeded.
While an incremental increase in law enforcement calls to the project site may occur, such calls would be consistent to the types of calls RPD responds to at the existing hospital. The General Plan Public Safety Element policy PA-7.5 strives to provide minimum response times of seven minutes on all Priority 1 calls and twelve minutes on all Priority 2 calls. Implementation of the project would not degrade the RPD’s performance to the point that a new facility or expansion of an existing facility would be needed. In addition, the General Plan Public Safety Element policy PS- 7-7 continues to implement and annually update the Police Department’s Strategic Plan by utilizing strategic planning and informed decision-making. With implementation of General Plan 2025 policies, compliance with existing codes and standards, and through Police Department practices, there would be a less than significant impact on the demand for additional law enforcement facilities or services either directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. c. Schools?
15c. Response: (Source: California Department of Education, https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/dataquest.asp, General Plan 2025 Final EIR, Section 5.13 Public Services pgs. 5.13-8 to 5.13-14) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within the Riverside Unified School District (RUSD) and borders Alvord Unified School District (AUSD). RUSD had a 2019–2020 total enrollment of 41,617 students and a 2020-2021 total enrollment of 40,083 students. AUSD had a 2019-2020 total enrollment of 18,170 students and a 2020-2021 total enrollment of 17,682 students. According to the City’s General Plan 2025 FEIR, both RUSD and AUSD contain many schools that are near or over capacity. To meet the full buildout analyzed in the General Plan, the school districts need to construct new elementary and high school sites to meet the needs Initial Study 86 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
of the projected student population. Maximum buildout of land within the RUSD boundary would generate approximately 136,716 students.
Although the project is a nonresidential use that would not involve the addition of any housing units that would increase numbers of school-aged children, the proposed project may result in an incremental increase in the City’s population due to new employees moving to the City. In accordance with California Government Code, a standard school facility impact fee will be paid to offset any incremental impacts of the Project. In addition, the Project will pay school mitigation fees to affected school districts as required by Proposition 1A and Senate Bill 50, codified in California Government Code Sections 65995.5–65995.7 and 66000 et seq. For CEQA purposes, pursuant to State law, payment of these associated fees reduces school facilities impacts to a less than significant level. Moreover, the proposed project’s anticipated population contribution to the City is consistent with what was analyzed in the 2025 General Plan; as such, potential impacts of the population growth from the proposed project has already been considered in potential impacts to the other public facilities within the City. Direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on schools would be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
d. Parks?
15d. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PR-1 – Parks, Open Spaces and Trails, Table PR-4 – Park and Recreation Facilities)
Less Than Significant Impact. Although the project is a nonresidential use that would not involve the addition of any housing units that would increase numbers of school-aged children, the proposed project may result in an incremental increase in the City’s population due to new employees moving to the City. However, the proposed project’s anticipated population contribution to the City is consistent with what was analyzed in the 2025 General Plan; as such, potential impacts of the population growth from the proposed project has already been considered in potential impacts to the other public facilities within the City. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact on the demand for additional park facilities or services. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. e. Other public facilities?
15e. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure LU-8 – Community Facilities) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is a hospital expansion project that would intensify available hospital services in the area. As mentioned above, the proposed project may result in an incremental increase in the City’s population due to new employees moving to the City. However, the proposed project’s anticipated population contribution to the City is consistent with what was analyzed in the 2025 General Plan; as such, potential impacts of the population growth from the proposed project has already been considered in potential impacts to the other public facilities within the City. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur on the demand for additional public facilities or services.
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: General Plan 2025 Figure PR-1 – Parks, Open Spaces and Trails, Table PR-4 – Park and Recreation Facilities)
Initial Study 87 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than Significant Impact. Although the project is a nonresidential use that would not involve the addition of any housing units that would increase numbers of recreation facility users the proposed project may result in an incremental increase in the City’s population due to new employees moving to the City. However, the proposed project’s anticipated population contribution to the City is consistent with what was analyzed in the 2025 General Plan; as such, potential impacts of the population growth from the proposed project has already been considered in potential impacts to the other public facilities within the City. Therefore, the proposed improvements would not result in the need for new or expanded parks or park facilities. The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of such facilities would occur or be accelerated. Impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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: General Plan 2025 Figure PR-1 – Parks, Open Spaces and Trails, Table PR-4 – Park and Recreation Facilities)
No Impact. Refer to Response 15d, above. Project implementation does not include new recreational facilities nor would it require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, due to the nature of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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; General Plan FPEIR Figure 5.15-4 – Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio and Level of Service (LOS) (Typical 2025), Table 5.15- D – Existing and Future Trip Generation Estimates, Table 5.15-H – Existing and Typical Density Scenario Intersection Levels of Service, Table 5.15-I – Conceptual General Plan Intersection Improvement Recommendations, Table 5.15-J – Current Status of Roadways Projected to Operate at LOS E or F in 2025, and Table 5.15.-K – Freeway Analysis Proposed General Plan) Potentially Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes on the surrounding roadways and could result in a conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, this topic will be analyzed in the forthcoming EIR.
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
17b. Response: (Source: Project Description)
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed expansion would increase employees and visitors to the hospital.
Although regional VMT could decrease due to patients having to travel less distance to receive medical care, overall VMT may increase and any increase in VMT above existing levels could be potentially significant.
Therefore, this topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 88 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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-6 – Airport Safety Zones and Influence Areas) No Impact. The project site is not located within 2 miles of a private or public airport. The nearest airport is the Riverside Municipal Airport, which is located approximately 3 miles northeast. The project site is not located in an airport land use plan area or compatibility zone. Further, the proposed project does not include any operations that would result in a change to air traffic. Therefore, the project would have no impact resulting 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.
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: Project Site Plan, Project Description) Less than Significant Impact. Regional access to the project area is provided via State Route 91 (SR-91) approximately 1/4 mile to the south. Local access is provided via Magnolia Avenue, Polk Street, and Park Sierra Drive. The Medical Center is accessed through five existing driveways. There are two full-access driveways off of Park Sierra Drive, two full-access driveways from Polk Street, and one right-in and right-out driveway off of Magnolia Avenue.
A new entry plaza with a patient drop-off canopy would be constructed south of the existing hospital building and would connect to the existing driveway off of Park Sierra Drive. A tech dock connected to the northeast side of the proposed new tower with access from Polk Street would also be constructed. An additional right-in and rightout driveway off of Magnolia Avenue would also be constructed for use by emergency vehicles only. (See Figure 4, Conceptual Site Plan.)
The proposed project would continue to utilize existing driveways and will only incorporate new right-in and right-out driveways. The proposed Project is required to comply with the City’s development review process including review for compliance with all applicable fire code requirements for construction and access to the site.
Project access does not include new travel lanes and has been designed in conformance with the City’s engineering and fire department standards. As a result, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Initial Study 89 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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. Regional access to the project area is provided via SR-91, approximately onequarter mile to the south. Local access is provided via Magnolia Avenue, Polk Street, and Park Sierra Drive. The medical center is accessed through five existing driveways. There are two full-access driveways off of Park Sierra Drive, two full-access driveways from Polk Street, and one right-in and right-out driveway off of Magnolia Avenue. Additionally, adequate access will be provided on the two off-site locations.
All project access improvements have been designed in conformance with City engineering and fire department standards for emergency access and circulation. The proposed project would not alter any established emergency vehicle routes or otherwise interfere with emergency access. A traffic control plan may be required to ensure that adequate access and circulation is maintained on all surrounding streets during the project construction phase.
The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant.
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: AB 52 Consultation and Cultural Resources Inventory, prepared by Michael Baker International (Appendix C))
Potentially Significant Impact. This section addresses the proposed project’s potential impacts in relation to tribal cultural resources. Cultural resources include places, objects, and settlements that reflect group or individual religious, archaeological, architectural, or paleontological activities. By statute, “tribal cultural resources,” are generally described as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and are further defined in PRC Section 21074(a)(1)(A)–(B). Tribal cultural resources are generally described as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and are further defined in PRC Section 21074(a)(1)(A)–(B).
In accordance with Public Resources Code 21080.3.1, the City of Riverside sent out AB 52 consultation notices dated August, 9 2021, to the following tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, Cahuilla Band of Indians, Pechanga Cultural Resources Department, Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians to initiate consultation. Tribal consultation will continue and be concluded prior to certification of the EIR.
The analysis in this section is based on the Cultural Resources Inventory (2021) prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc. (ECORP) (Appendix C).
Initial Study 90 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ECORP conducted a cultural resources inventory consisting of a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search, a search of the Sacred Lands File by the NAHC, a field survey of the primary project area, and a cursory field visit of the proposed off-site areas. The results of the Sacred Lands File search by the NAHC did not identify any sacred lands within the project boundary. A record of all correspondence is provided in Attachment B of Appendix C (ECORP 2021). The absence of specific site information does not necessarily indicate the absence of cultural resources in the project area; therefore, the City will initiate consultation with the identified tribes in the area that have historical boundaries near the project site. If no tribal cultural resources are identified, a significant impact to known tribal cultural resources would not occur. However, subsurface construction disturbances (e.g., trenching, excavation, grading) associated with the proposed project would have the potential to impact unknown tribal cultural resources.
As such, the proposed project may affect tribal cultural resources, 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 this issue will be analyzed in the forthcoming EIR.
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: AB 52 Consultation and Cultural Resources Inventory, prepared by Michael Baker International (Appendix C))
Potentially Significant Impact. Refer to Response 18a, above. This issue will be analyzed in the forthcoming EIR.
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: RPU 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, City of Riverside Public Works Dept. “Update of the Integrated Master Plan for the Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities” (Carollo, January 2020), City of Riverside General Plan 2025 Table PF-1 – RPU Projected Domestic Water Supply (AC-FT/YR), Table PF-2 – RPU Projected Water Demand, Table PF-3 – Western Municipal Water District Projected Domestic Water Supply (AC-FT/YR); Riverside Public Utilities; and General Plan FPEIR Table
5.16-G – General Plan Projected Water Demand for RPU Including Water Reliability for 2025,City of Riverside Sewer Master Plan Volume 3, https://www.riversideca.gov/publicworks/sewer/expansion.asp, accessed August 17, 2021; Sewer Study Report prepared by Michael Baker International (Appendix J), Initial Study 91 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
City of Riverside Master Plan For The Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities – Figure ES.1 Projected Waste Water Flow. )
Less Than Significant Impact. Public water service would be provided by Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) via connection to existing pipelines in Magnolia Avenue. Off-site waterline and storage upgrades are not required to supply water to the project as the existing water system has adequate capacity to serve the project.
Wastewater treatment for the project would be provided by the City of Riverside Water Quality Control Plant.
All flow generated on-site is conveyed off-site via the existing 12-inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP) gravity sewer line located in Magnolia Avenue. Flows are conveyed northerly approximately 1,310 feet to the connection with the 33-inch sewer main. The proposed project would expand the on-site sewer conveyance system and connect the new facilities to the existing sewer system. According to the “Sewer Study Report” prepared for the Project by Michael Baker International (Appendix J), the Project is estimated to generate approximately 41,638 gallons per day (gpd). Based on the estimated wastewater generation of the Project, modeling results suggest that under existing and buildout conditions, the Project would not exceed permissible limits of downstream wastewater infrastructure including the Pierce Street Pump Station which conveys flows from the hospital to the Riverside Water Quality Control Plant for treatment. According to RPU’s 2020 UWMP, the Riverside Water Quality Control Plant treatment capacity has been expanded to 46 million gallons per day (mgd) (or 51,527 acre-feet per year); the City contributed approximately 28,345 acre-feet to the plant in 2020 (Table 6-3). The Master Plan for Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities shows in Figure ES.1 Projected Wastewater Flow that buildout for year 2032 is estimated to generate at 29 mgd, which does not exceed the 46 mgd capacity at the Water Quality Control Plant. Therefore, the Water Quality Control Plant will have sufficient capacity to service the proposed Project.
The proposed Project site contains an existing storm drain system that will be expanded as part of the Project (refer to Figure 7, BMP Plan). According to the Drainage Study, the Project will not result in adverse impacts to downstream storm drain capacities because post-construction flow rates will be less than pre-construction flow rates during storm events. The proposed project would maintain existing on-site drainage patterns and be designed to utilize LID bioretention and biotreatment BMPs and landscaping features to redirect, capture, and treat surface runoff from new development prior to entering the existing storm drain system in Park Sierra Street and Magnolia Avenue. Roof runoff from new buildings would drain into landscaped areas prior to entering the existing storm drain system. No increase in stormwater runoff is anticipated with the implementation of the proposed project and no off-site improvements to the existing stormwater system would be required.
The RPU currently provides electrical services to the project site. All electrical lines would be undergrounded and would connect to existing connections at the corner of Magnolia Avenue and Polk Street. The new patient tower will receive a new 12 kilovolts (kV) power circuit from City of Riverside power and meter at 12kV. There will be a unit substation 12kV-480V installed in the basement providing power to the new Patient Tower The Project would also connect to existing telecommunication services on-site.
Because the Project would connect to existing utility services located on-site and in adjacent streets with sufficient capacity, and sufficient water supplies and wastewater treatment capacities are available to serve the Project, it would not 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 resulting in significant environmental effects. The new hospital tower will include pumping capability to maintain pressures for the new facility. Additionally, the Project is consistent with the Typical Growth Scenario of the General Plan 2025 where future water and wastewater generation was determined to be adequate (see Tables 5.16-E, 5.16-F, 5.16-G, 5.16- H, 5.16-I, 5.16-J and 5.16-K of the General Plan 2025 Final PEIR).
Initial Study 92 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
For the reasons stated above, it is not anticipated that the project would 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 Therefore, implementation of the project would result in less than significant impacts and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
19b. Response: (Source: General Plan FPEIR Figure 5.16-3 – Water Service Areas, Figure 5.16-4 – Water Facilities, Table 5.16-E – RPU Projected Domestic Water Supply (AC-FT/YR), Table 5.16-F – Projected Water Demand, and Table 5.16-G – General Plan Projected Water Demand for RPU including Water Reliability for 2025; RPU Utilities 2020 Urban Water Management Plan; RPU Regional Water Supply Partnership, Website - https://riversideca.gov/utilities/WMWDandRPU/) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would require an additional 24,009,000 gallons of water a year above existing conditions. According to the City’s General Plan, Figure PF-1 Water Service Areas, the project site is located in the RPU water service area. RPU’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) must be updated every five years to include the most recent population trends. Similarly, the City must consult with the RPU regarding development projects exceeding the thresholds noted in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15155 to ensure that sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project. The RPU’s 2020 UWMP, which was adopted on July 1, 2021, estimated water supply and demand during normal, dry, and multiple-dry years.
The primary source of water supply for the RPU is local groundwater. The RPU also distributes recycled water for nonpotable uses. The RPU also has a water sharing agreement with Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) to access imported water when needed. This agreement can provide RPU with up to 21,700 acre-feet per year (AFY) of imported water. According to the UWMP, water demands are projected to increase during the next 25 years. The demand projections were developed considering variables like climate, population growth, and customer behaviors. As shown in Table 15, Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (All values in AF), the RPU has assumed that 100 percent of its groundwater and recycled water supplies would remain available during a single dry year and multiple dry years. The availability of imported water has been adjusted based on the reliability assessment by MWD and WMWD. As such, the RPU would have adequate water supply to serve the project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Therefore, this project was found to have a less than significant impact on water supplies and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Table 15, Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (All values in AF) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year Supply Totals 114,923 124,893 128,193 129,693 129,693 Demand
Totals
90,712 100,803 103,260 105,807 108,447
Difference 24,211 24,090 24,934 23,886 21,245
Second Year Supply Totals 114,923 124,893 128,193 129,693 129,693 Demand
Totals
90,712 100,803 103,260 105,807 108,447
Difference 24,211 24,090 24,934 23,886 21,245
Third Year Supply Totals 114,923 124,893 128,193 129,693 129,693 Demand
Totals
90,712 100,803 103,260 105,807 108,447
Initial Study 93 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Difference 24,211 24,090 24,934 23,886 21,245
Fourth Year Supply Totals 114,923 124,893 128,193 129,693 129,693 Demand
Totals
90,712 100,803 103,260 105,807 108,447
Difference 24,211 24,090 24,934 23,886 21,245
Fifth Year Supply Totals 114,923 124,893 128,193 129,693 129,693 Demand
Totals
90,712 100,803 103,260 105,807 108,447
Difference 24,211 24,090 24,934 23,886 21,245
Source: Riverside Public Utilities 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Table 7-4. DWR 7-4 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (All values in AF)
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: General Plan 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, Table 5.16-L – Estimated Future Wastewater Generation for the Planning Area Served by WMWD; Wastewater Integrated Master Plan and Certified EIR; and Sewer Study Report prepared by Michael Baker International (Appendix J), City of Riverside Master Plan For The Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities – Figure ES.1 Projected Waste Water Flow.) Less Than Significant Impact. The on-site sewer system is composed primarily of public and private 8-inch sewer mains. On-site generated wastewater is transported west. The wastewater is then transported north via an 8-inch private main and 8-inch VCP public gravity sewer. The flow discharges into a manhole also receiving wastewater via an existing 10-inch private sewer main parallel to Iris Avenue and north of the hospital campus.
All flow is conveyed off-site via the existing 12-inch public VCP gravity sewer northerly approximately 1,310 feet to the connection with the 33-inch sewer main. Wastewater then travels west towards the Pierce Street lift station and then north to the Riverside Water Quality Control Plant for treatment. The proposed project would expand the on-site sewer conveyance system and connect the new facilities to the existing sewer system.
A Sewer Study Report was prepared for the proposed project by Michael Baker International (Appendix J) to determine existing sanitary sewer services have available capacity for the proposed expansion and sufficiently size the proposed on-site sewer mains and laterals. According to the Table D-1 of Appendix J, the proposed Project will produce approximately 41,638 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. Based on the estimated wastewater generation of the Project, modeling results suggest that under existing and buildout conditions, the Project would not exceed permissible limits of downstream wastewater infrastructure including the Pierce Street Lift Station which conveys flows from the hospital to the Riverside Water Quality Control Plant.
According to the Master Plan for the Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities, the control plant has the capacity to generate a total flow of 46 million gallons per day (mgd). Projections made anticipate that buildouts in year 2032 could generate 29 mgd which would not exceed the Water Quality Control Plant capacity. Therefore, the wastewater treatment provider would have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Initial Study 94 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
19d. Response: (Source: FPEIR Table 5.16-A – Existing Landfills and Table 5.16-M – Estimated Future Solid Waste Generation from the Planning Area)
Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction would result in minor quantities of construction debris such as concrete, wiring, metal, packaging, and other materials. Any solid waste generated by the project would be disposed of at a licensed off-site landfill or at a recycling facility, as appropriate.
Project operation would also generate quantities of solid waste, including medical waste. All solid waste would be collected by workers on a daily basis, or as otherwise needed, and ultimately transported to a licensed off-site landfill or recycling facility for disposal as appropriate. The project would produce medical waste and other hazardous materials related to hospital operations, such as chemicals used in treatments for chemotherapy and certain pharmaceuticals. The existing hospital operations produces approximately 60,000 lbs per month of medical waste and 1,000 lbs of additional RCRA materials, which are disposed through a local waste collection vendor. Solid waste collection and disposal services are provided by Burrtec and medical waste collection and disposal services are provided by Stericycle.
The project area is currently served by 3 landfills: Badlands Landfill, Lamb Canyon, and El Sobrante Landfill.
Badlands accepts up to 4,800 tons per day of solid waste and is anticipated to close in 2022 (CalRecycle 2019a).
Lamb Canyon accepts up to 5,000 tons per day of solid waste and is anticipated to close in 2029 (CalRecycle 2019b). El Sobrante accepts 16,054 tons per day of in-county solid waste and is anticipated to close in 2051 (CalRecycle 2019c). Solid waste collection services are provided by three companies in the City of Riverside.
One of which is Burrtec, which provides solid waste collection services to the existing Medical Center and will serve the proposed expansion. Burrtec also provides sustainable waste and recycling services in addition to having an extensive network of processing facilities that would manage the project site waste stream and includes solid waste, recyclables, green waste, food waste, construction and demolition waste, electronic waste and a number of other materials. Thus, project implementation would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
Furthermore, the 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).
For the reasons stated above, the project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
Therefore, implementation of the project would result in less than significant impacts and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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)
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 19d, above. The project would generate solid waste during construction and operation activities, thus requiring consideration of waste reduction and recycling measures. The Initial Study 95 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1989 California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) requires that specific waste diversion goals be achieved for all California cities and counties, including an overall reduction in solid waste produced by 50 percent by the year 2000. In addition, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended, requires expanded or new development projects to incorporate storage areas for recycling bins into the proposed design. Additionally, AB 341 (2011) established a state goal to reduce, recycle, or compost no less than 75 percent of waste generated by the year 2020.
The City is currently achieving a 60 percent diversion rate, well above AB 939 requirements. In addition, CALGreen requires all developments to divert 50 percent of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris for all projects and 100 percent of excavated soil and land clearing debris for all nonresidential projects beginning January 1, 2011.
Furthermore, the proposed project must comply with the City’s waste disposal requirements as well as CALGreen and as such would not conflict with any federal, state, or local regulations related to solid waste. Construction and operational activities for the proposed project would occur in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Compliance with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, would ensure impacts related to compliance with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste would be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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 Figure PS-7 – Fire Hazards Area, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area Map) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Riverside has a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) that integrates with the County of Riverside’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. These plans provide a uniform approach to evaluate risks and include measures to reduce future hazards and better respond during emergency evacuations. The LHMP utilizes Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps to determine which areas of the City are most at risk of wildfires so the City can allocate additional resources to those areas and implement protective measures to new buildings or remodeled older structures to reduce potential fire risk.
The project site is not identified as being in a very high fire hazard severity zone according to the Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the SRA Map produced by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE 2007). According to the City’s 2025 General Plan, Figure PS-7 Fire Hazard Areas Map, the project site is not located in an area in a moderate, high, or very high hazard rating area. As such, the project site and lands in the vicinity are generally not subject to the risk of wildfire.
Activities associated with the project would not impede the free movement of emergency response vehicles.
Construction vehicles would utilize Magnolia Road for access to the areas where project improvements are proposed. Regional access to the project area is provided via SR-91 approximately one-quarter (1/4) mile to the south (see Figure 1, Regional and Vicinity Map and Figure 2A, Proposed Hospital Expansion). During Initial Study 96 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
construction, materials would be placed on-site within the project boundaries or adjacent to the current phase of construction to avoid access conflicts in case of emergency evacuations and would not substantially interfere with area circulation. Off-Site areas will be only used for employee and construction worker parking.
As mentioned above, it is assumed that the majority of the new employees would be sourced from the City of Riverside or surrounding communities. However, it is possible that some employees would move to the City.
Patients of the hospital are anticipated to be residents of the City and surrounding areas in the County, although some patients may be from other areas in Southern California. The incremental increase in population would not affect evacuation or emergency services because the potential increase is within the growth projections of the City’s General Plan. Furthermore, the proposed project may assist evacuation or emergency services as the project would expand hospital services in the region that could be used in emergency situations.
For the reasons stated above, the project would not interfere with the ability of the County of Riverside Sheriff’s Department, which serves the project vicinity, to safely evacuate the area in the event of an emergency. Therefore, impacts due to wildfires are considered less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 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 Figure PS-7 – Fire Hazards Area, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area Map) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 20a, above. The project site is not located on lands classified as being in a very high fire hazard severity zone. The project site is generally flat and no steep slopes are located on or adjacent to the affected lands that would exacerbate wildfire risk (i.e., from upslope winds). No other natural features are present on-site that would exacerbate wildfire risks.
During construction, the project would introduce potential ignition sources that do not currently exist on the site, such as generators, vehicles, and gas- or electric-powered small hand tools. During operations and maintenance, potential ignition sources, such as vehicles and gas- or electric-powered small hand tools and maintenance equipment, may be used. However, as the project site is currently developed, ignition sources from operational and maintenance activities would be similar to existing conditions.
Comprehensive safety measures in compliance with federal, state, and local worker safety and fire protection codes and regulations would be implemented for the proposed project. In addition to the Project site not being located near or adjacent to any very high fire hazard severity zones, these measures would further minimize the occurrence or spread of wildfire during construction and for the life of the proposed project.
The project would not, 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.
Impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may Initial Study 97 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
20c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-7 – Fire Hazards Area, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area Map) No Impact. Refer to Response 20a, above. The project site is generally flat and no steep slopes are located on or adjacent to the affected lands. Additionally, the project site is fully served by existing roads and utilities and as such will not need to construct any new roads, fuel breaks, power lines or other utilities.
Because the project would not require the installation or maintenance of new associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, there will be no impact. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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 Figure PS-7 – Fire Hazards Area, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area Map) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Response 20a, above.
The project site and surrounding lands are relatively flat. Therefore, the risk of downslope or downstream flooding or landslide hazards is considered to be low to nonexistent. Although the site is identified as being in a very high fire hazard severity zone, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Thus, there will be no impacts in this regard. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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 selfsustaining 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, and Figure OS-8 – MSHCP Cell Areas; General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.4-2 – MSHCP Area Plans, 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, and 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; Cultural Resources Inventory prepared by Michael Baker International; CalEEMod Initial Study 98 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2016.3.2; EMFAC2017; California Energy Commission – Electricity Consumption by County and Gas Consumption by County; and Sewer Study Report prepared by Michael Baker International) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Refer to Response 4a, above. The proposed project consists of an expansion of an existing hospital within an urbanized area completely surrounded by existing development. As the project site is completely disturbed and not located within a designated habitat for an endangered species, the proposed project’s potential to adversely affect species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional policies/regulations would be less than significant. The project site would not 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. As described in Section 4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts on biological resources.
There are no known historic or cultural known on site that would be affected by the redevelopment of the hospital.
However, there is always the potential that unknown historic and/or cultural resources on the site may have been obscured by pavement or other materials over the years. In instances where inadvertent discoveries are made, existing regulations, standard City conditions of approval, and the mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study will be implemented in order to avoid any further damage to historic and/or cultural resources. Because of existing regulations, standard conditions of approval, and mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study related to any inadvertent biological or cultural resources encountered during construction, impacts are considered less than significant.
Impacts to tribal cultural resources will be addressed in the forthcoming EIR. b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
21b. Response: (Source: General Plan FPEIR Section 6 – Long-Term Effects/ Cumulative Impacts for the General Plan 2025 Program)
Potentially Significant Impact. The analysis contained herein has considered all impacts on a project level. For those topics where it has been concluded there is potential for significant impacts to occur (i.e., Transportation and Tribal Cultural Resources), further analysis will be conducted in the EIR to analyze the scope of the impact and determine appropriate mitigation measures as needed to address significant impacts. Cumulative analyses will be conducted for each topic included in the EIR. Potential cumulative impacts were evaluated for each of the thresholds addressed in this Initial Study and it was determined that implementation of the project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts to the following areas: aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. These findings are summarized below.
The proposed project would not have a cumulative impact on aesthetic resources as the project would not degrade a scenic vista or damage a scenic resource. The project would comply with objectives and policies of the MASP, which aims to promote scenic beautification, historic preservation, and provision of pedestrian and Initial Study 99 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
bike facilities. The project site is located within an urban built-up area and the hospital expansion site is zoned CR-SP - Commercial Retail and Specific Plan (Magnolia Avenue) Overlay Zones and has a land use designation of MU-U - Mixed-Use Urban. The off-site property located at 11510 Magnolia Avenue has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use Village (MU-V) and is zoned R-1-7000-SP – Single Family Residential and Specific Plan (Magnolia Avenue) Overlay Zones and CG-SP – Commercial General and Specific Plan (Magnolia Avenue) Overlay Zones. The off-site property located at 10821 Magnolia Avenue has a land use designation of Mixed Use Village (MU-V) and is zoned MU-V-SP - Mixed Use Village and Specific Plan (Magnolia Avenue) Overlay Zones. There would be no significant cumulative impact resulting from the project plus other development. As such, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative effect.
As to biology and agriculture, the project site is located within the MSHCP boundary area, however it is not located within a criteria cell. Nevertheless, the Project will be required to pay the MSHCP mitigation fee adopted by the City of Riverside as the Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF). In addition, the Project site is also located within the Stephen Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Plan area and is responsible for paying the appropriate mitigation fee. As the site is already developed, the project site does not support biological resources or agricultural land.
With payment of the SKR mitigation fee and the LDMF, there would be no significant cumulative impact resulting from the project
The project would have a less than significant impact for air quality health impacts as well since the project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operational air emissions. Implementation of the project therefore would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
As to energy, there would be no significant cumulative impact resulting from the project plus other development.
The existing Medical Center currently receives service from the Riverside Public Utilities, therefore the Project will connect to existing electrical lines on the corner of Magnolia Avenue and Polk Street. The new patient tower will receive a new 12 kilovolts (kV) power circuit from City of Riverside power and meter at 12kV. There will be a unit substation 12kV-480V installed in the basement providing power to the new Patient Tower. Even if there were a significant cumulative impact as to energy resources, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such significant cumulative effect because it would not use energy in a wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary way. With compliance with the City’s Economic Prosperity Action Plan and CAP, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
With respect to hazards and hydrology, project construction activities would occur in accordance with all applicable local standards adopted by the City of Riverside, as well as state and federal health and safety requirements intended to minimize hazardous materials risk to the public, such as Cal/OSHA requirements, the Hazardous Waste Control Act, the California Accidental Release Protection Program, and the California Health and Safety Code. Stormwater runoff from the site, under both construction and post-construction development conditions, would be avoided through compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations administered by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). As noted in the Preliminary Technical Drainage Study, the overall impervious cover of the site would be reduced with project implementation. As such, the peak flow is lower than predevelopment peak flow; thus proposed condition flow rates would be the same or less than the existing condition. As such, no storage facilities are required for the project for the peak flow mitigation. With compliance with relevant standards and policies, implementation of the project would not result in cumulative impacts to hazards or hydrology and water quality.
Initial Study 100 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
There would be no significant cumulative impact resulting from the project plus other development and, even if there were, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such significant cumulative effect.
Concerning noise, the proposed project would be required to comply with the construction time limitations within Municipal Code Section 7.35.020(G). Adherence to the permitted hours of construction is required in recognition that construction activities undertaken during daytime hours are a typical part of living in an urban environment and do not cause a significant disruption. Thus, a less than significant noise impact would result from construction activities. Noise from operation of the project is anticipated to be similar of the existing operations on-site. There is not expected to be any significant cumulative impact resulting from the project plus other development. Even if there were such a cumulative effect, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such significant cumulative effect because the project will adhere to the City’s noise standards designed to protect the environment from such cumulative noise.
As to population, it is assumed that the majority of the new employees would be sourced from the City of Riverside or surrounding communities. However, it is possible that some employees would move to the City.
SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS establishes population, housing, and growth trends for the City, Riverside County, and SCAG region. Based on an average household size of 3.28, the project could at most result in an indirect population increase of approximately 2,446 persons. SCAG growth forecasts in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS estimate the City’s population to reach 386,600 persons by 2040, representing a total increase of 75,900 persons between 2012 and 2040. The project’s potential indirect population growth (2,446 persons) represents 3 percent of the City’s anticipated population increase by 2040, and less than one percent of the City’s total projected 2040 population. Additionally, SCAG growth forecasts in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS estimate the City’s employment to reach 200,500 jobs by 2040, representing a total increase of 80,500 jobs between 2012 and 2040. The approximately 746 project-generated jobs represent less than one percent of the City’s anticipated jobs increase by 2040, and less than one half of one percent of the City’s total projected 2040 employment.
As such, the project would not cause the General Plan buildout population or employment forecasts to be exceeded. The General Plan buildout forecasts are considered to represent the cumulative effects in this regard and they are not deemed significant cumulative effects because facilities and infrastructure have been planned to support such population. There would be no significant cumulative impact resulting from the project plus other development. Accordingly, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative effect.
The project may contribute minimally to cumulative development impacts within the region, similar to other future developments from the following areas: transportation and tribal cultural resources. The proposed project’s potential cumulatively considerable impacts for these two areas will be analyzed in the forthcoming EIR. c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Initial Study 101 Case # PR-2021-000713
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
21c. Response: (Source: General Plan FPEIR Section 5 – Environmental Impact Analysis for the General Plan 2025 Program)
Less Than Significant Impact. Effects on human beings were evaluated as part of the aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gases, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, hazards and hazardous materials, and transportation sections of this Initial Study. The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to all of those sections. The construction of additional hospital facilities and a parking garage benefits humans overall. The associated impacts to humans from construction and operation of this facility has been determined to be less than significant as outlined herein.
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)