Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning Case No. PR-2020-000519 T&B Planning, Inc. Page 5-89
Resources Sensitivity, Appendix D, Title 20 of the Riverside Municipal Code, Cultural Resources Survey prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates on February 16, 2021)
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis:
The Project’s potential impacts to biological resources and cultural resources are evaluated herein, which conclude that with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified by the Adopted MND, impacts to biological and cultural resources would be reduced to below a level of significance. As such, with mitigation, the Project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the Adopted MND, and the Project would not increase the severity of a significant impact as previously identified and analyzed in the Adopted MND
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)?
(Source: FPEIR Section 6 – Long-Term Effects/ Cumulative Impacts for the General Plan 2025 Program)
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis:
The Project’s potential cumulatively-considerable impacts have been evaluated throughout this MND Addendum and in the analysis and discussions contained in the Adopted MND. Where cumulatively- considerable impacts were identified, appropriate and feasible mitigation measures were adopted to reduce potential impacts to the maximum feasible extent. There are no components of the proposed Project that would result in new or increased cumulatively-considerable impacts. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the Adopted MND, and the Project would not increase the severity of a significant impact as previously identified and analyzed in the Adopted MND.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
(Source: FPEIR Section 5 – Environmental Impact Analysis for the General Plan 2025 Program)
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis:
The Project’s potential to result in adverse effects to human beings has been evaluated throughout this MND Addendum and in the discussion and analysis contained in the Adopted MND. Where significant impacts have been identified, feasible mitigation measures have been imposed on the Project to reduce potential adverse effects to human beings to the maximum feasible extent. There are no components of the proposed Project that would result in increased substantial adverse effects on human beings beyond
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning Case No. PR-2020-000519 T&B Planning, Inc. Page 5-90
what was evaluated, disclosed, and mitigated to the maximum feasible extent by the Adopted MND.
Therefore, the Project would not result in any new impacts not already analyzed in the Adopted MND, and the Project would not increase the severity of a significant impact as previously identified and analyzed in the Adopted MND.
5.2 EARLIER ANALYSES
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 as per California Code of Regulations, § 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
Earlier Analyses Used, if any: P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Location: City of Riverside
Community & Economic Development Department – Planning Division 3900 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92522
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning Case No. PR-2020-000519 T&B Planning, Inc. Page 6-1
6.0 References
The following documents were referred to as information sources during the preparation of this document.
Cited As: Source:
(City of Riverside,
2015)
City of Riverside Community & Economic Development Department Planning Division. Negative Declaration. Case Number: P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0846, & P14-0847. Technical Appendix A. (BFSA, 2021a) Brian F. Smith and Associates, 2021. Cultural Resource Report for the Alessandro Corporate Center Project. February 16, 2021. Technical Appendix C.
(BFSA, 2021b) Brian F. Smith and Associates, 2021. Paleontological Assessment for the Alessandro Corporate Center Project. October 5, 2021. Technical Appendix G.
(Helix, 2018) Helix Environmental Planning, 2018. Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Analysis. October 9, 2018. Technical Appendix K.
(HMC, 2020) Hazard Management Consulting, 2020. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 2630-910-08, 2631-000-26, 2631- 000-28, and 2632-500-63 Riverside, CA 92508. December 14, 2020.
Technical Appendix E1.
(HMC, 2021) Hazard Management Consulting, 2021. Results of a Limited Phase II Soil Vapor Investigation at the Property Located at Assessor’s Parcel Numbers:
2630-910-08, 2631-000-26, 2631-000-28, and 2632-500-63 in Riverside, CA 92508 (Site). January 7, 2021. Technical Appendix E2.
(NorCal, 2021) NorCal Engineering. Change of Geotechnical Consultant of Record.
September 13, 2021. Technical Appendix D2.
(Salem, 2019) Salem Engineering Group, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Report Update Nine Acre Parcel NEC Alessandro Boulevard and I-215 Riverside, California.
April 4, 2019. Technical Appendix D1.
(Thienes, 2021) Thienes Engineering, Inc., 2021. Preliminary Hydrology Calculations for Alessandro Corporate Center Northeast Corner of Alessandro Boulevard and the 1-215 Freeway Riverside, CA. February 19, 2021. Technical Appendix H1.
(Thienes, 2021) Thienes Engineering, Inc., 2021. Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan 2610 Alessandro. March 12, 2021. Technical Appendix H2.
(Urban Crossroads,
2021a)
Urban Crossroads, 2021a. Alessandro Corporate Center Air Quality Impact Analysis. October 26, 2021. Technical Appendix B.
(Urban Crossroads,
2021b)
Urban Crossroads, 2021b. Alessandro Corporate Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis. October 26, 2021. Technical Appendix F.
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning Case No. PR-2020-000519 T&B Planning, Inc. Page 6-2
Cited As: Source:
(Urban Crossroads,
2021c)
Urban Crossroads, 2021c. Alessandro Corporate Center Noise Impact Analysis. October 18, 2021. Technical Appendix I.
(Urban Crosssroads,
Inc., 2021b)
Urban Crossroads, 2021d. Alessandro Corporate Center Trip Generation Assessment. May 18, 2021. Technical Appendix J.
(Urban Crossroads,
2021b)
Urban Crossroads, 2021b. Alessandro Corporate Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis. October 26, 2021. Technical Appendix F.
(Urban Crossroads,
2021c)
Urban Crossroads, 2021c. Alessandro Corporate Center Noise Impact Analysis. October 18, 2021. Technical Appendix I.
(Urban Crosssroads,
Inc., 2021b)
Urban Crossroads, 2021d. Alessandro Corporate Center Trip Generation Assessment. May 18, 2021. Technical Appendix J.
Documents and Websites consulted in Preparation of this Addendum to MND (ALUC, 2021) Airport Land Use Commission Riverside County, 2021. Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Development Review. April 8, 2021. Available at the City of Riverside as part of the Project’s Administrative Record. (CA Legislative Info,
2014)
California Legislative Information, 2014. Assembly Bill 52. Approved:
September 25, 2014. Available on-line at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=2013201 40AB52. Accessed: April 16, 2021.
(CalRecycle, 2019a) California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2019. El Sobrante Landfill. Available on-line at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2280?siteID =2402. Accessed: April 16, 2021.
(CalRecycle, 2019b) California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2019. Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill. Available on-line at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2368. Accessed:
April 16, 2021.
(CalRecycle, 2019c) California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2019. Badlands Sanitary Landfill. Available on-line at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2368. Accessed:
April 16, 2021.
(Caltrans, 2018) Caltrans, 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Available online at:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c436 43b1aaf7000dfcc19983 Accessed: May 25, 2021.
(CARB, 2021a) California Air Resources Board, 2021. Advanced Clean Trucks. Available on- line at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-trucks.
Accessed: April 16, 2021.
(CARB, 2021b) California Air Resources Board, 2021. Governor Newsom’s Zero-Emission by 2035 Executive Order N-79-20. Available on-line at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/governor-newsoms-zero- emission-2035-executive-order-n-79-20. Accessed: April 16, 2021.
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning Case No. PR-2020-000519 T&B Planning, Inc. Page 6-3
Cited As: Source:
(CBSC, 2020) California Building Standards Code, 2020. 2019 Building Standards Code.
January 1, 2020. Available on-line at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes.
Accessed: April 16, 2021.
(City of Riverside,
1982)
City of Riverside, 1982. Specific Plan/E.I.R. Sycamore Canyon Business Park.
July 1982. Available on-line at:
https://riversideca.gov/cedd/sites/riversideca.gov.cedd/files/pdf/planning/s pec-plans/syc-bus-park/plan_doc.pdf. Accessed: April 16, 2021. (City of Riverside,
2007a)
City of Riverside, 2007. Riverside General Plan 2025. Adopted: November 2007. Available on-line at: https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/city- plans/general-plan-0. Accessed: April 16, 2021.
(City of Riverside,
2007b)
City of Riverside, 2007. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Riverside General Plan and Supporting Documents (State Clearinghouse Number 2004021108). Certified: November 2007. Available on-line at: https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/city-plans/general-plan-0.
Accessed: April 16, 2021.
(City of Riverside,
2021)
City of Riverside, 2021. City of Riverside Municipal Code. February 15, 2021.
Available on-line at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/riverside/codes/code_of_ordinances.
Accessed: April 16, 2021.
(City of Riverside, n.d.) City of Riverside. Property Viewer Map. Available on-line at:
https://cityofriverside.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html? id=0133857a762c4108a745230732cbaa8c. Accessed: April 16, 2021. (DTSC, 2021) Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2021. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). Available on-line at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed: April 16, 2021. (FEMA, 2008) Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06065C0745G. August 28, 2008. Available on-line at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Accessed: April 16, 2021. (FTA, 2018) Federal Transit Administration, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018. Available on-line at:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual- fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed: April 15, 2021.
(Google Earth , 2021) Google Earth, 2021. Multiple Dates. Version 7.3.3.7786. Computer Software.
(Morales, 2019) Morales, Amir, 2019. Email from Amir Morales of Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. February 11, 2019.
(RCALUC, 2014) Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 2014. March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. November 13, 2014.
Available on-line at: http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/17%20- %20Vol.%201%20March%20Air%20Reserve%20Base%20Final.pdf?ver=2016- 08-15-145812-700. Accessed: April 16, 2021.
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning Case No. PR-2020-000519 T&B Planning, Inc. Page 6-4
Cited As: Source:
(Salem, 2019) Salem Engineering Group, Inc., 2019. Geotechnical Investigation Report Update Nine Acre Parcel NEC Alessandro Boulevard and I-215 Riverside, California. April 4, 2019.
(SCAQMD, 2017) South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2017. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. March 2017. Available on-line at:
https://riversideca.gov/cedd/sites/riversideca.gov.cedd/files/pdf/planning/s pec-plans/syc-bus-park/plan_doc.pdf. Accessed: April 16, 2021. (WMWD, 2016) Western Municipal Water District, 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Update. June 2016. Available on-line at:
https://www.wmwd.com/DocumentCenter/View/3162/Western_2015- UWMP_Final_Body-Only?bidId=. Accessed: April 16, 2021.
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning Case No. PR2020-000519 TT&B Planning, Inc. Page 7-1
7.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
IMPACT CATEGORY MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION TIMING RESPONSIBLE MONITORING PARTY1 MONITORING/REPORTING METHOD Air Quality MM Air 1: To reduce diesel emissions associated with construction, construction contractors shall provide temporary electricity to the site to eliminate the need for diesel-powered electric generators, or provide evidence that electrical hook ups at construction sites are not cost effective or feasible.
Prior to issuance of grading and/or building
permits.
Building & Safety Division
Public Works Department
Proof of power source to be provided
from electric service provider.
MM Air 2: To reduce construction related particulate matter air quality impacts of City projects the following measures shall be required:
1. the generation of dust shall be controlled as required by the AQMD;
2. grading activities shall cease during periods of high winds (greater than 25 mph);
3. trucks hauling soil, dirt or other emissive materials shall have their loads covered with a tarp or other protective cover as determined by the City Engineer; and
4. the contractor shall prepare and maintain a traffic control plan, prepared, stamped and signed by either a licensed Traffic Engineer or a Civil Engineer. The preparation of the plan shall be in accordance with Chapter 5 of the latest edition of the Caltrans Traffic Manual and the State Standard Specifications. The plan shall be submitted for approval, by the engineer, at the preconstruction meeting. Work shall not commence without an approved traffic control plan.
Prior to issuance of individual grading
and/or building permit.
The plan for traffic control shall be
submitted with the grading and/or building
plans.
Public Works Department Construction Inspection.
Cultural
Resources
MM CR 1: At least 30 days prior to beginning Project construction, the Project Applicant shall contact the Tribes of grading, excavation, and the monitoring program and, if a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement has not been developed, to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement between the Applicant and the Tribes. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site.
Site-Specific Environmental Review and/or
prior to the issuance of a demolition,
grading and/or building permit.
Planning Division
Public Works Department
Compliance with Project Conditions
of Approval.
MM CR 2: If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/cultural resources are discovered during grading, the developer, the project archaeologist, and the Tribe(s) shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method for archaeological resources. If the developer, the project archaeologist, and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Community Development Director for decision. The Community Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of CEQA with respect to the archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe(s). Notwithstanding any other rights available under the lay, the decision of the Community Development Direct shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
Site-Specific Environmental Review and/or
prior to the issuance of a demolition,
grading and/or building permit.
Planning Division
Public Works Department
Compliance with Project Conditions
of Approval.
Traffic MM-1 Traffic (Modified): Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall complete street improvement plans including signing and striping plans and traffic signal modification plans related to the widening of the northernly curb of Alessandro Boulevard between the I-215 Freeway Northbound On-Ramp and Project Driveways in order to accommodate a 3rd and 4th westbound lane as recommended in the Traffic Study (Dated July 28, 2022). The applicant shall obtain any necessary permits and approvals from both the City of Riverside and Caltrans District 8 associated with the widening and improvements on Alessandro Boulevard. The applicant is solely responsible for the procurement and installation of the street improvements to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
Planning Division
Public Works Department –
Traffic Division
Applicant to complete and submit
Street Improvement Plans, Signing
and Striping Plans, and Traffic Signal
Modification Plans and submit to City
for review/approval.
Applicant to obtain permits and
approvals from the City of Riverside
and Caltrans District 8.
Applicant shall install the required
1 All Agencies are City of Riverside Departments/Divisions unless otherwise noted.
Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning Case No. PR2020-000519 TT&B Planning, Inc. Page 7-2
IMPACT CATEGORY MITIGATION MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION TIMING RESPONSIBLE MONITORING PARTY1 MONITORING/REPORTING METHOD street improvements.
Technical Appendix A
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Riverside Case Nos.
P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847 PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Draft Negative Declaration 1 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
WARD: 2
1. Case Number: P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
2. Project Title: Commercial / Industrial Development at Alessandro Boulevard and Interstate 215
3. Hearing Date: December 17, 2015
4. Lead Agency: City of Riverside
Community & Economic Development Department
Planning Division
3900 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92522
5. Contact Person: Kyle Smith, AICP, Senior Planner
Phone Number: (951) 826-5220
[email protected]
6. Project Location: The project site is a three -parcel, approximately 9.13 acre vacant site located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Alessandro Boulevard and Interstate 215, within the BMP -SP – Business and Manufacturing Park and Specific Plan (Sycamore Canyon Business Park) Overlay Zone, in Ward 2
7. Project Applicant/Project Sponsor’s Name:
Jack Kofdarali of J & T Business Management
8. General Plan Designation: B/OP – Business Office Park (Proposed C – Commercial for 3.7 acre portion)
9. Zoning: BMP – Business Manufacturing Park (Proposed CR – Commercial Retail for 3.7 acre portion)
10. Description of Project:
Proposal by Jack Kofdarali of J & T Business Management for consideration of: a) an Amendment to the Land Use and Urban Design Element of the General Plan to change the land use designation of approximately
3.7 acres from B/OP – Business Office Park to C – Commercial; b) an Amendme nt to the Sycamore Canyon Business Park Specific Plan to expand the area in which commercial uses are permitted within the Sycamore Canyon Business Park area; c) an Amendment to the Riverside Municipal Code (Title 19 - Zoning) to change the zoning designat ion of approximately 3.7 acres from BMP – Business Manufacturing Park to CR – Commercial Retail; d) a Conditional Use Permit to modify and relocate an existing approximately 880 square foot vehicle wash facility; e) a Conditional Use Permit to establish a vehicle fuel station with an approximately 2,572 square foot canopy to primarily serve diesel trucks; and f) Design Review of the plot plan and building elevations related to the proposed construction of one new industrial/manufacturing building (73,200 square feet), one new vehicle fuel station (2,572 square foot canopy), three new commercial buildings (4,000 square feet, 4,000 square feet & 7,000 square feet), and an relocated vehicle wash facility (880 square feet). The project site is a three -parcel, ap proximately 9.13 acre vacant site located at the
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
Draft Negative Declaration
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Draft Negative Declaration 2 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847 northeast corner of the intersection of Alessandro Boulevard and Interstate 215, within the BMP -SP – Business and Manufacturing Park and Specific Plan (Sycamore Canyon Business Park) Overlay Zone, in Ward 2.
11. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project’s surroundings:
Existing Land Use General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Project Site
Vehicle Fuel Station and
vacant land
B/OP – Business Office Park BMP-SP – Business and
Manufacturing Park and
Specific Plan (Sycamore
Canyon Business Park)
Overlay Zone
North
Business Office Park B/OP – Business Office Park BMP-SP – Business and Manufacturing Park and
Specific Plan (Sycamore
Canyon Business Park)
Overlay Zone
East
Commercial B/OP – Business Office Park BMP-SP – Business and Manufacturing Park and
Specific Plan (Sycamore
Canyon Business Park)
Overlay Zone
South Alessandro Blvd. & March ARB
West Interstate 215
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financial approval, or participation agreement.):
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
13. Other Environmental Reviews Incorporated by Reference in this Review:
a. General Plan 2025
b. GP 2025 FPEIR
c. Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan
d. Project Specific Traffic Impact Analysis
e. Project Specific Noise Analysis
f. Project Specific Air Quality & GHG Impact Analysis
g. Project Specific Drainage Study
h. Project Specific Biological Resources Report
i. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission case ZAP1123MA15
14. Acronyms
AICUZ - Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study
AQMP - Air Quality Management Plan
AUSD - Alvord Unified School District
CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act
CMP - Congestion Management Plan
EIR - Environmental Impact Report
EMWD - Eastern Municipal Water District
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Draft Negative Declaration 3 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847 EOP - Emergency Operations Plan
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
FPEIR - GP 2025 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report GIS - Geographic Information System
GhG - Green House Gas
GP 2025 - General Plan 2025
IS - Initial Study
LHMP - Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
MARB/MIP - March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port
MJPA-JLUS - March Joint Powers Authority - Joint Land Use Study MSHCP - Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
MVUSD - Moreno Valley Unified School District
NCCP - Natural Communities Conservation Plan
OEM - Office of Emergency Services
OPR - Office of Planning & Research, State
PEIR - Program Environmental Impact Report
PW - Public Works, Riverside
RCALUC - Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
RCALUCP - Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan RCP - Regional Comprehensive Plan
RCTC - Riverside County Transportation Commission
RMC - Riverside Municipal Code
RPD - Riverside Police Department
RPU - Riverside Public Utilities
RTIP - Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP - Regional Transportation Plan
RUSD - Riverside Unified School District
SCAG - Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD - South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCH - State Clearinghouse
SKR-HCP - Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat - Habitat Conservation Plan SWPPP - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
USGS - United States Geologic Survey
WMWD - Western Municipal Water District
WQMP - Water Quality Management Plan
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Draft Negative Declaration 4 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least o ne 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
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Service
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
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 Riv erside, 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 si gnificant 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 e arlier 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 ea rlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Printed Name & Title For City of Riverside
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 1 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
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 wel l 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 si gnificant, 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” entr ies 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 with in 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 tha n Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measure which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a re ference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
Environmental Initial Study
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 2 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 3 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. AESTHETICS.
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 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)
The City’s General Plan 2025 policies aim at balancing development interests with broader community preservation objectives. Through compliance and implementation of Citywide Design Guidelines, impacts related to scenic vistas, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to scenic vistas are less than significant impacts. 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, Table
5.1-B – Scenic Parkways, the City’s Urban Forest Tree Poli cy Manual, Title 20 – Cultural Resources and, Title 19 – Article V – Chapter 19.100 – Residential Zones - RC Zone) The General Plan 2025 designates several roadways as Scenic Boulevards and Parkways in order to protect scenic resources and enhance the vis ual character of Riverside. The proposed project is located along Alessandro Blvd which is designated as a Scenic Boulevard within the Circulation and Community Mobility Element of the General Plan 2025.
Through compliance and implementation of Citywide Design Guidelines, impacts related to visual resources are less than significant impacts.
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
1c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025, General Plan 2025 FPEIR, Zoning Code, Citywide Design and Si gn Guidelines, Sycamore Canyon Business Park Specific Plan) The proposed project is required to implement the General Plan 2025 goals and policies and will be subject to Design Review consistent with established Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines. Due to all these factors, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the visual character and quality of the area are less than significant impacts. 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, Title 19 – Article VIII – Chapter 19.556 – Lighting, Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines, Sycamore Canyon Business Park Specific Plan)
The project involves the introduction of new lighting typically associated with commercial & industrial development. This lighting will be similar to that which exists in the surrounding area and will not be considered significant. Additionally, the site is not within the Mount Palomar Lighting Area. The impact is less than significant.
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 4 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information complied by the California Depar tment of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the C alifornia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
2a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 – Figure OS-2 – Agricultural Suitability & General Plan 2025 FPEIR – Appendix I – Designated Farmland Table)
The Project is located within an urbanized area. A review of Figure OS -2 – Agricultural Suitability of the General Plan 2025 reveals that the project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Sta tewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, the project will have no impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively to agricultural uses. b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
2b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 – Figure OS-3 - Williamson Act Preserves, General Plan 2025 FPEIR – Figure 5.2-4 – Proposed Zones Permitting Agricultural Uses, and Title 19) A review of Figure 5.2 -2 – Williamson Act Preserves of the General Plan 2025 FPEIR reveals that the project site is not located within an area that is affected by a Williamson Act Preserve or under a Williamson Act Contract. Moreover, the project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not next to land zoned for agricultural use; therefore, the project will have no impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively.
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resourc es 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: GIS Map – Forest Data)
The City of Riverside has no forest land that can support 10-percent native tree cover nor does it have any timberland.
Therefore, no impacts will occur from this project directly, indirectly or cumulatively.
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 5 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
2d. Response: (Source: GIS Map – Forest Data)
The City of Riverside has no forest land that can support 10 -percent native tree cover nor does it have any timberland, therefore no impacts will occur from this project directly, indirectly or cumulatively. e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
2e. Response: (Source: General Plan – Figure OS-2 – Agricultural Suitability, Figure OS-3 – Williamson Act Preserves, General Plan 2025 FPEIR – Appendix I – Designated Farmland Table, Title 19 – Article V – Chapter
19.100 – Residential Zones – RC Zone and RA-5 Zone and GIS Map – Forest Data) The project will not result in the conversion of designated farmland to non -agricultural uses. In addition, there are no agricultural resources or operations, including farmlands within proximity of the subject site. The City of Riverside has no forest land that can support 10 -percent native tree cover. Therefore, no impacts will occur from this project directly, indirectly or cumulatively to conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or to the loss of forest land.
3. AIR QUALITY.
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management 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’s 200 7 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP))
Projects that are consistent with the projections of employment and population forecasts identified by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are considered consisten t with the AQMP growth projections, since these forecast numbers were used by SCAG’s modeling section to forecast travel demand and air quality for planning activities such as the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the SCAQMD’s AQMP, Regional Transportati on Improvement Program (TRIP), and the Regional Housing Plan. This project is consistent with the projections of employment and population forecasts identified by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) that are consistent with the Gener al Plan 2025 “Typical Growth Scenario.” Since the project is consistent with the General Plan 2025, it is also consistent with the AQMP. The project will have a less than significant impact directly, indirectly and cumulatively to the implementation of an air quality plan.
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 6 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Table 5.3 -B SCAQMD CEQA Regional Significance Thresholds, South Coast Air Quality Management District’s 2007 AQMP, URBEMIS 2007 Model or CalEEMod, EMFAC 2007 Model and Air Quality Analysis prepared by Yorke Engineering, LLC on March 2015) Per Ge neral Plan 2025 FPEIR MM Air 1 and 7, a SCAQMD CalEEMod computer model analyzed both short -term construction related and long-term operational impacts. The results of the CalEEMod model determined that the proposed project would result in the following emission levels:
CalEEMod MODEL RESULTS
SHORT-TERM IMPACTS
Activity
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
SCAQMD Daily
Thresholds
Construction
75 100 550 150 150 55
Daily Project
- Emissions
Construction
63.3 54.7 42.1 0.06 10.1 6.6
Exceeds Y/N
Threshold? N N N N N N
CalEEMod MODEL RESULTS
LONG-TERM IMPACTS
Activity
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
SCAQMD
Daily
Thresholds
Operation
55 55 550 150 150 55
Daily Project
- Emissions
Operational
24.7 30.4 113.6 0.27 17.4 5.0
Exceeds Y/N
Threshold? N N N N N N
The above tables compare the project emissions (short -term and long -term) to the SCAQMD daily thresholds and shows that established thresholds will not be exceeded. To ensure short term emissions are further reduced the General Plan 2025 Program required mitigation measures that have been applied to this project, MM AIR 1-2. Therefore, because the project will not violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation , and will be subject to fur ther mitigation the impacts directly, indirectly and cumulatively will be less than significant impacts with mitigation to ambient air quality and to contributing to an existing air quality violation.
MM Air 1: To reduce diesel emissions associated with construction, construction contractors shall provide temporary electricity to eliminate the need for diesel powered generators, or provide evidence that electrical h ook ups at construction sites are not cost effective or feasible.
MM Air 2: To reduce construction related particulate matter air quality impacts of City projects the following measures shall be required:
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 7 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. the generation of dust shall be controlled as required by the AQMD;
2. grading activities shall cease during period of high winds (greater than 25mph);
3. trucks hauling soil, dirt or other emissive materials shall have their loads covered with a tarp or other protective cover as determined by the City Engineer; and
4. the contractor shall prepare and maintain a traffi c control plan, prepared, stamped and signed by either a licensed Traffic Engineer or a Civil Engineer. The preparation of the plan shall be in accordance with Chapter 5 of the latest edition of the Caltrans Traffic Manual and the State Standard Specificat ions. The plan shall be submitted for approval, by the engineer, at the preconstruction meeting. Work shall not commence without an approval traffic control plan.
In order to ensure that the State and Federal ambient air quality standards for CO are not violated, the SCAQMD recommends that projects with a potential to generate heavy volumes of traffic, and which can lead to high levels of CO, use hot spot modeling to determine the potential to create a CO “Hot Spot”. A CO “Hot Spot” is a localized concen tration of CO that is above the State or Federal 1 -hour or 8 -hour ambient air standards. A localized high CO level is associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow -moving vehicles and requires additional analysis beyond total project emissions quantification. Because the proposed project has, the potential to generate heavy traffic volumes of Air Quality analysis was prepared by Yorke Engineering, LLC on March 2015 . The analysis included a CO hot spot model using project - specific traffic data. Th e model determined that potential for a CO hot spot above State or Federal 1 -hour or 8 -hour ambient air standards as a result of the project directly, indirectly or cumulatively will be a less than significant impact.
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
3c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Table 5.3 -B SCAQMD CEQA Regional Significance Thresholds, South Coast Air Quality Management District’s 200 7 Air Quality Management Plan, CalEEMod Model, EMFAC 2007 Model and Air Quality Analysis prepared by Yorke Engineering, LLC on March 2015) Per the GP 2025 FPEIR, AQMP thresholds indicate future construction activities under the General Plan are projected to result in significant levels of NOx and ROG, both ozone precursors, PM -10, PM -2.5 and CO. Although long -term emissions are expected to decrease by 2025, all criteria pollutants remain above the SCAQMD thresholds.
The portion of the Basin within which the City is located is designated as a non-attainment area for ozone, PM-10 and PM-
2.5 under State standard s, and as a non -attainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, PM -10, and PM -2.5 under Federal standards.
Because the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan 2025, cumulative impacts related to criteria pollutants as a result of the project were previously evaluated as part of the cumulative analysis of build out anticipated under the General Plan 2025 Program. As a result, the proposed project does not result in any new significant impacts that were not previously evaluated and for which a statement of overriding considerations was adopted as part of the General Plan 2025 FPEIR. Therefore, cumulative air quality emissions impacts are less than significant. d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 8 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
3d. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Table 5.3 -B SCAQMD CEQA Regional Significance Thresholds, South Coast Air Quality Management District’s 200 7 Air Quality Management Plan, CalEEMod, EMFAC 2007 Model and Air Quality Analysis prepared by Yorke Engineering, LLC on March 2015) Short-term impacts associated with construction from General Plan 2025 typical build out will result in increased air emissions from grading, earthmoving, and construction activities. Mitigation Measures of the General Plan 2025 FPEIR requires individual development to employ construction approaches that minimize pollutant emissions (General Plan 2025 FPEIR MM AIR 1 - MM AIR 5, e.g., watering for dust control, tuning equipment, limiting truck idling times). In conformance with the General Plan 2025 FPEIR MM AIR 1 and MM AIR 7 an CalEEMod computer model analyzed short-term construction and long -term operational related impacts of the project and determined that the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for short -term construction and long -term operational impacts. Therefore, the project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and a less than significant impact will occur directly, indirectly or cumulatively for this project. e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
3e. Response: (Source: Air Quality Analysis prepared by Yorke Engineering, LLC on March 2015) While exact quantification of objectionable odors cannot be determined due to the subjective nature of what is considered “objectionable,” associated infrastructure and related off -site improvements present a potential for the generation of objectionable o dors associated with construction activities and may possibly be the actual use as well. However, the construction activities associated with the expected build out of the project site will generate airborne odors like diesel exhaust emissions, architectu ral coating applications, and on - and off -site improvement installations. However, said emissions would occur only during daylight hours, be short -term in duration, and would be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction site. Therefore, they would not expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors on a permanent basis. Therefore, the project will not cause objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and a less than significant impact directly, indirectly and cumulatively will occur.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fis h and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
4a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 – Figure OS-6 – Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Core Reserve and Other Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP), Figure OS -7 – MSHCP Cores and Linkages, Figure OS -8 – MSHCP Cell Areas, General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.4-2 – 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, Figure 5.4 -8 – MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area and Habitat Assessment prepared by ICF on August 2014)
As required under the MSHCP, a habitat assessment prepared by a qualified biologist was prepared for the project. The habitat assessment finds the proposed project complies with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP . Through compliance with MSHCP, impacts to any species as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are found to have a less than significant impact directly, indirectly and cumulatively. 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, 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 PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 9 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Subunit Areas, Figure 5.4 -6 – MSHCP Narrow Endemic Pl ant Species Survey Area , Figure 5.4-7 – MSHCP Criteria Area Species Survey Area, Figure 5.4 -8 – MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area, MSHCP Section 6.1.2 - Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, and Habitat Assessment prepared by ICF on August 2014)
As required under the MSHCP, a habitat assessment prepared by a qualified biologist was prepared for the project. The habitat assessment finds the proposed project complies with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, which outlines th e requirements and protection of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools within the plan area. Through compliance with MSHCP Section
6.1.2 and other applicable requirements, impacts to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified i n local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are found to have a less than significant impact directly, indirectly and cumulatively. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
4c. Response: (Source: City of Riverside GIS/CADME USGS Quad Map Layer, and Wetlands Delineation) The project encroaches into a drainage course and/or wetland under the jurisdiction of the USACOE. State and Federal laws and regulations will be implemented as mitigation to protect resources from development through the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) Section 404 permitting process, the California Wetlands Conservation Policy (CWCO), and with applicable MSHCP policies. The project is required to comply applicable the local, State and Federal laws and regulations, the MSHCP, and the “no net wetland l oss” policy. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on jurisdictional waters and wetlands directly, indirectly and cumulatively. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wild life species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
4d. Response: (Source: MSHCP, General Plan 2025 –Figure OS -7 – MSHCP Cores and Linkage and Habitat Assessment prepared by ICF on August 2014)
The project site is primarily urban and is not located within an established wildlife movement corridor.
Additional, the project is not in a known wildlife nursery site. Thus, impacts to wildlife species, migratory corridors and native wildlife nursery sites will not be impacted due to project implementation and impacts will remain less than significant.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
4e. Response: (Source: MSHCP, Title 16 Section 16.72.040 – Establishing the Western Riverside County MSHCP Mitigation Fee, Title 16 Section 16.40.040 – Establishing a Threatened and Endangered Species Fees, City of Riverside Urban Forest Tree Policy Manual, and Habitat Assessment prepared by ICF on August 2014) Implementation of the proposed Project is subject to all applicable Federal, State, and local policies and regulations relate d to the protection of biological resources and tree preservation. In addition, the project is required to comply with Riverside Municipal Code Section 16.72.040 establishing the MSHCP mitigation fee and Section 16.40.040 establishing the Threatened and Endangered Species Fees.
Any project within the City of Riverside’s boundaries that proposes planting a street tree within a City r ight-of-way must follow the Urban Forest Tree Policy Manual. The Manual documents guidelines for the planting, pruning, preservation, and removal of all trees in City rights -of-way. The specifications in the Manual are based on national standards for tre e care established by the International Society of Arboriculture, the National Arborists Association, and the American National Standards Institute. Any future project will be in compliance with the Tree Policy Manual when planting a tree within a City right-of-way, and therefore, impacts will be less than significant. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 10 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
conservation plan?
4f. Response: (Source: MSHCP, General Plan 2025 – Figure OS-6 – Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Core Reserve and Other Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP), Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan, Lake Mathews Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan, and El Sobrante Landfill Habitat Conservation Plan)
The project site is located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The City of Riverside, as the lead agency for the project, requires that the project comply with the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The MSHCP includes a program for the collection of development mitigation fees, policies for the review of projects in areas where habitat must be conserved and policies for the protection of riparian areas, vernal pools, and narrow endemic plants. It also includes requirements to perform plant, bird, reptile, and mammal surveys in certain areas. The primary intent of the MSHCP is to provide for the conservation of a range of plants and animals and in return, provide take coverage and mitigation for projects throughout Western Riverside County to avoid the cost and delays of mitigating biological impacts on a project -by-project basis. It would allow the incidental take (for development purposes) of species and their habitat from development. The project will have no impact on the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
5a. Response: (Source: GP 2025 FPEIR Table 5.5 -A Historical Districts and Neighborhood Conservation Areas and Appendix D, Title 20 of the Riverside Municipal Code, and s ite specific Cultural Resources Survey prepared by Power Engineers on May 2015)
While, no other cult ural resources were identified on -site, the applicant, through consultation with the Native American Tribes, under Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) & Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) has agreed to the following mitigation measures such that the project will have a less than significant impact with mitigation on historical resources as defined under CEQA Guidelines.
MM CR 1 : At least 30 days prior to beginning Project construction, the Project Applicant shall contact the Tribe (s) of grading, excavation, and the monitoring program and, if a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement has not been developed, to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement between the Applicant and the Tribes. The Agreeme nt shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site.
MM CR 2 : If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/cultural resources ar e discovered during grading, the developer, the project archaeologist, and the Tribe(s) shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code 21083.2(b) avoi dance is the preferred method for archaeological resources. If the developer, the project archaeologist, and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Community Development Director for decision. The Community Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of CEQA with respect to the archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe(s). Notwithstanding any other rights available under the lay, the decision of the Community Development Direct shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
5b. Response: (Source: GP 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.5-1 - Archaeological Sensitivity and Figure 5.5 -2 - Prehistoric Cultural Resources Sensitivity, Appendix D – Cultural Resources Study and site specific Cultural Resources PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 11 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Survey prepared by Power Engineers on May 2015)
Because the proposed Project involves ground disturbance and as part of the recently adopted, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Tribal Consultation Notification was initiated by the City of Riverside. In order to address potential discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources, the following mitigation measures have been proposed so that the project, as proposed, will have a less than significant impact with mitigation to archeological resources.
MM CR 1 : At least 30 days prior to beginning Project construction, the Project Applicant shall contact the Tribe (s) of grading, excavation, and the monitoring program and, if a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement has not been developed, to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitori ng Agreement between the Applicant and the Tribes. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and gr ound disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site.
MM CR 2 : If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/cultural resources are discovered during grading, the developer, the project archaeologist, and the Tribe(s) shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for suc h resources. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method for archaeological resources. If the developer, the project archaeologist, and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, t hese issues will be presented to the Community Development Director for decision. The Community and Economic Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of CEQA with respect to the archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe(s). Notwithstanding any other rights available under the lay, the decision of the Community Development Direct shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
5c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Policy HP-1.3) Activities including constructi on-related and earth -disturbing actions, could damage or destroy fossils in rock units. As with archaeological resources, paleontological resources are generally considered to be historical resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D). Consequently, damage or destruction to these resources could cause a significant impact. A cultural resou rces survey prepared by Power Engineers on May 2015 has determined that the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy HP -1.3 including compliance with the Federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and as such the project will have a less than significant impact directly or indirectly to a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
5d. Response: (Source: GP 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.5-1 - Archaeological Sensitivity and Figure 5.5 -2 - Prehistoric Cultural Resources Sensitivity)
Where construction is proposed in undeveloped areas, disturbance on vacant lands could have the potential to disturb or destroy buried Native American human remains as well as other human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Consistent with State laws protecting these remains, sites containing human remains must be identified and treated in a sensitive manner. In the event tha t Native American human remains are inadvertently discovered during project-related construction activities, there would be unavoidable significant adverse impacts to Native American resources, but implementation of the Cultural Resources Mitigation Measur es will, however, reduce impacts to human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries to a less than significant level.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 12 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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. 6i. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS -1 – Regional Fault Zones & General Plan 2025 FPEIR Appendix E – Geotechnical Report)
Seismic activity is to be expected in Southern California. In the City of Riverside, there are no Alquist -Priolo zones. The project site does not contain any known fault lines and the potential for fault rupture or seismic shaking is low. Compliance with t he California Building Code regulations will ensure that no impacts related to strong seismic ground will occur directly, indirectly and cumulatively.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
6ii. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Appendix E – Geotechnical Report) The San Jacinto Fault Zone located in the northeastern portion of the City, or the Elsinore Fault Zone, located in the southern portion of the City’s Sphere of Influence, have the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause intense ground shaking. Because the proposed project complies with California Building Code regulations, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking will have no impact directly, indirectly and cumulatively. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 6iii. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS -1 – Regional Fault Zones, Figure PS -2 – Liquefaction Zones, General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure PS -3 – Soils with High Shrink-Swell Potential, and Appendix E – Geotechnical Report)
The project site is located in an area with the low – moderate potential for liquefaction. A geotechnical study has been prepared to determine the soil properties and specific potential for liquefaction for the proposed development.
Incorporation of the recommended design measures of the geotechnical study/preliminary soils report for compliance with the California Building Code regu lations will ensure that impacts related to seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, are reduced to less than significant impact levels directly, indirectly and cumulatively. iv. Landslides?
6iv. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.6-1 – Areas Underlain by Steep Slope, Appendix E – Geotechnical Report, Title 18 – Subdivision Code, Title 17 – Grading Code, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP)
The project site and its surroundings have generally flat topography and are not located in an area prone to landslides per Figure 5.6 -1 of the General Plan 2025 Program Final PEIR. Therefore, there will be no impact related to landslides directly, indirectly and cumulatively.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 6b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.6 -1 – Areas Underlain by Steep Slope, Figure 5.6 -4 – Soils, Table 5.6-B – Soil Types, Title 18 – Subdivision Code, Title 17 – Grading Code, and SWPPP) 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 Pollu tant 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) also requires the implementation of measures designed to minimize soil erosion. Compliance with State and Federal requirements as well as with Titles 18 and 17 will ensure that soil erosion or loss of topsoil will be less than significant impact directly, indirectly and cumulatively. 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?
6c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-1 – Regional Fault Zones, Figure PS-2 – Liquefaction Zones, General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure PS -3 – Soils with High Shrink -Swell Potential, Figure 5.6 -1 - Areas PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 13 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Underlain by Steep Slope, Figure 5.6-4 – Soils, Table 5.6-B – Soil Types, and Appendix E – Geotechnical Report) The general topography of the subject site is flat. Compliance with the City’s existing codes and the policies contained in the General Plan 2025 help to ensure that impacts related to geologic conditions are reduced to less than significant impacts level directly, indirectly and cumulatively.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Tab le 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
6d. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.6 -4 – Soils, Figure 5.6 -4 – Soils, Table 5.6 -B – Soil Types, Figure 5.6-5 – Soils with High Shrink-Swell Potential, Appendix E – Geotechnical Report, and California Building Code as adopted by the City of Riverside and set out in Title 16 of the Riverside Municipal Code) Expansive soil is defined under California Building Code. The soil type of the subject site is Monserate (See Figure 5.64 – Soils of the General Plan 2025 Program Final PEIR. ) The preliminary soils report prepared for this project indicates that the soil is an expansive soil. Compliance with the recommendations of the soils report and applicable provisions of the City’s Subdivision Code - Title 18 and the California Building Code with regard to soil h azards related to the expansive soils will be reduced to a less than significant impact level for this project directly, indirectly and cumulatively. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
6e. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.6-4 – Soils, Table 5.6-B – Soil Types) The proposed project will be served by sewer infrastructure. Therefore, the project will have no impact.
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 14 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
7a. Response: (Source: GHG Analysis prepared by Yorke Engineering, LLC on March 2015) Projects that are consistent with the projections of employment and population forecasts identified by the SCAG are considered consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since these forecast numbers were used by SCAG’s modeling section to forecast travel demand and air quality for planning activities such as the RTP, the SCAQMD’s AQMP, RTIP, and the Regional Housing Plan. As the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, the project will not interfere with the State’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 as stated in AB 32 and an 80 percent reduction in GhG emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 as stated in Executive Order S -3-05. Emissions resulting from the proposed project are expected to be far lower than t he SCAQMD thresholds for significance. Therefore, this project will have less than significant impacts with respect to GHG emissions. b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
7b. Response: (Source: GHG Analysis prepared by Yorke Engineering, LLC on March 2015) Projects that are consistent with the projections of employment and population forecasts identified by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are considered consistent with t he AQMP growth projections, since these forecast numbers were used by SCAG's modeling section to forecast travel demand and air quality for planning activities such as the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the SCAQMD’s AQMP, Regional Transportation Impro vement Program (RTIP), and the Regional Housing Plan. This project is consistent with the projections of employment and population forecasts identified by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) which are consistent with the General Plan 2025 “Typical Growth Scenario.” Since the project is consistent with the General Plan 2025 it is also consistent with the AQMP. The project will have a less than significant impact directly, indirectly and cumulatively to the implementation of an air quality plan.
8. 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?
8a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Public Safety Element, GP 2025 FPEIR, California Health and Safety Code, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, California Building Code, Riverside Fire Department EOP, 2002 and Riverside Operational Area – Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP, 2004 Part 1, OEM’s Strategic Plan) The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Office of Hazardous Materials Safety prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, as described in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and implemented by Title 13 of the CCR. Through the compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws, the likelihood and severity of accidents would be reduced. Therefore, there would be less than significant impact directly, indirectly and cumulat ively to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
8b. 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, 2004 Part 1, OEM’s Strategic Plan)
Compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local laws related to the transportation, use and storage of hazardous materials would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit, use and storage to a less than significant PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 15 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
impact directly, indirectly and cumulatively.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
8c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Public Safety and Education Elements, GP 2025 FPEIR Table 5.7 -D - CalARP RMP Facilities in the Project Area, Figure 5.13-2 – RUSD Boundaries, Table 5.13 -D RUSD Schools, Figure 5.13-3 AUSD Boundaries, Table 5.13 -E AUSD Schools, Figure 5.13 -4 – Other School District Boundaries, California Health and Safety Code, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, California Building Code)
The proposed project does not involve any emission or handling of any hazardous materials, substance s or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing school because the use is located over one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school .
Therefore, the project will have no impact regarding emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school directly, indirectly or cumulatively.
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?
8d. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Fig ure PS-5 – Hazardous Waste Sites, GP 2025 FPEIR Tables 5.7 -A – CERCLIS Facility Information, Figure 5.7 -B – Regulated Facilities in TRI Information and 5.7 -C – DTSC EnviroStor Database Listed Sites)
A review of hazardous materials site lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 found that the project site is not included on any such lists. Therefore, the project would have no impact to creating any significant hazard to the public or environment directly, indirectly or cumulatively. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
8e. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS -6 – Airport Safety Zones and Influence Areas, RCALUCP and March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port Comprehensive Land Use Plan (1999), Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study for March Air Reserve Base (August 2005) The proposed project is located within Safety and/or Airport Compatibility Zone(s) B1 as depicted on MARB/MIP Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) . The project was reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to ensure that the project is consistent with the compatibility zone as well as in compliance with the land use standards in the RCALUP and JLUS. Because the project has been found to be consistent by the ALUC, impacts related to hazards from airports are less than significant impacts directly, indirectly and cumulatively. f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
8f. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-6 – Airport Safety Zones and Influence Areas, RCALUCP Because the proposed project is not located within proximity of a private airstrip, and does not propose a private airstrip, the project will not expose people residing or working in the City to excessive noise levels related to a private airstrip an d would have no impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively. g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
8g. Response: (Source: GP 2025 FPEIR Chapter 7.5.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials, City of Riverside’s EOP, 2002 and Riverside Operational Area – Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP, 2004 Part 1, and OEM’s Strategic Plan)
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 16 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The project will be served by existing, fully improved streets, as well as a network of on -site local streets. All streets have been designed to meet the Public Works and Fire Departments’ specifications. As part of the project’s construction, a temporary street closing will be necessary. Any street closing will be of short duration so as not to interfere or impede with any emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact directly, indirectly and cumulatively to an emergency response or evacuation plan. h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
8h. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-7 – Fire Hazard Areas, GIS Map Layer VHFSZ 2010, City of Riverside’s EOP, 2002 , Riverside Operational Area – Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP, 2004 Part 1/Part 2 and OEM’s Strategic Plan)
The proposed project is not located within a Very High Fire Severity Zone (VHFSZ) or adjacent to wildland areas or a VHFSZ; therefore no impact regarding wildland fires either directly, indirectly or cumulatively from this project will occur.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
9a. Response: (Source: GP 2025 FPEIR Table 5.8 -A – Beneficial Uses Receiving Water and Project Specific Hydrology Study and/or Water Quality Management Plan prepared by SDH & Associates) Upon construction of the buildings and parking lot for this project, the permeable area of the project site will increase slightly with additional landscaped area. A preliminary WQMP has been submitted and approved by the Public Works Department for this project. Furthermore, under the NPDES permit managed by the RWQCB, the project is not required to institute new water quality BMPs, as no new runoff will be generated from the project. Urban runoff is currently and will continue to be conveyed by local drai nage facilities developed throughout the City to regional drainage facilities, and then ultimately to the receiving waters. To address potential water contaminants, the project is required to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local water quality regulations
During the construction phase, a final approved WQMP will be required for the project, as well as coverage under the State’s General Permit for Construction Activities, administered by the Santa Ana RWQCB. Storm water management measures will be required to be implemented to effectively control erosion and sedimentation and other construction - related pollutants during construction. Given compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws regulating surface water quality and the fact that the project will not result in a net increase of surface water runoff, the p roposed project as designed is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively to any water quality standards or waste discharge.
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groun dwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre -existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
9b. Response: (Source: 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), RPU Map of Water Supply Basins, RPU Urban Water Management Plan , WMWD Urban Water Management Plan)
The proposed project is located within the Riverside South Water Supply Basin. The project is required to connect to the City’s sewer system and comply with all NPDES and WQMP requirements that will ensure the proposed project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 17 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Therefore, there will be no impact to groundwater supplies and recharge either directly, indirectly or cumulatively. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
9c. Response: (Source: Preliminary grading plan, and Project Specific – Hydrology Study, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and Water Quality Management Plan)
The project is subject to NPDES requirements; areas of one acre or more of disturbance are subject to preparing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the prevention of runoff during construction. Erosion, siltation and other possible pollutants associated with long -term implementation of pro jects are addressed as part of the Water Quality management Plan (WQMP) and grading permit process. The design of the project is in compliance with the requirements of Title 17 and as such drainage is not permitted to drain into the arroyo and the requirem ent for a 50 -foot setback from the arroyo has been maintained . Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively to existing drainage patterns. d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the sit e or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
9d. Response: (Source: Preliminary grading plan, and Project Specific – Hydrology Study, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and Water Quality Management Plan)
The project will not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, alter the course of stream or river, or increase the ra te or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. Therefore no flooding on or off-site as a result of the project will occur and there will be no impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively that would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. e. 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?
9e. Response: (Source: Preliminary Grading Plan, and Project Specific – Hydrology Study, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and Water Quality Management Plan)
Within the scope of the project is the installation of storm water drainage system, specifically as described within the project description portion of this project. As the storm water drainage system will be installed concurrently with the construction of this project, the storm water drainage system will be adequately sized to accommodate the drainage created by this project. The project is expected to generate the following pollutants: sediment/turbidity, nutrients, trash and debr is, oxygen demanding substances, bacteria and viruses, oil & grease, and pesticides. These expected pollutants will be treated through the incorporation of the site design, source control and treatment control measures specified in the project specific WQMP. Therefore, as the e xpected pollutants will be mitigated through the project site design, source control, and treatment controls already integrated into the project design, the project will not create or contribute runoff water exceeding capacity of existing or planned stormw ater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff and there will be a less than significant impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively. f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
9f. Response: (Source: Project Specific – Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and Water Quality Management Plan)
The project is over one are in size and is required to have coverage under the State’s General Permit for Construction Activities (SWPPP). As stated in the Permit, during and after construction, best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented to reduce/eliminate adverse water quality impacts resulting from development. Furthermore, the City has ensured that the development does not cause adverse water quality impacts, pursuant to its Municipal Separate Storm System (MS4) permit through the project’s WQMP.
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 18 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The proposed development will increase the amount of impervious surface area in the City. This imp ervious area includes paved parking areas, sidewalks, roadways, and building rooftops; all sources of runoff that may carry pollutants and therefore has the potential to degrade water quality. This development has been required to prepare preliminary BMP’ s that have been reviewed and approved by Public Works. Final BMP’s will be required prior to grading permit issuance.
The purpose of this requirement is to insure treatment BMP’s are installed/constructed as part of the project so that the pollutants generated by the project will be treated in perpetuity. Therefore, impacts related to degrading water quality are less than significant directly, indirectly and cumulatively. g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
9g. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-4 – Flood Hazard Areas, and FEMA Flood Hazard Maps) A review of National Flood Insurance Rate Map (Map Number 06065C0745G Effective Date August 28, 2008) and Figure
5.8-2 – Flood Hazard Areas of the General Plan Program FPEIR, shows that the project is, 1) not located within or near a 100-year flood hazard area and/or 2) the project does not involve the construction of housi ng. There will be no impact caused by this project directly, indirectly or cumulatively as it will not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
9h. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-4 – Flood Hazard Areas, and FEMA Flood Hazard Maps) The project site is not located within or near a 100 -year flood hazard area as depicted on General Plan 2025 Program FPEIR Figure 5.8 -2 – Flood Hazard Areas and the National Flood Insurance Rate Map (Map Number 06065C 0745G Effective Date August 28, 2008). Therefore, the project will not place a structure within a 100 -year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows and no impact will occur directly, indirectly or cumulatively. i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
9i. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-4 – Flood Hazard Areas, and FEMA Flood Hazard Maps) The project site is not located within or near a flood hazard area as depicted on General Plan 2025 Program FPEIR Figure
5.8-2 – Flood Hazard Areas and the National Flood Insurance Rate Map (Map Number 06065C 0745G Effective Date August 28, 2008) or subject to dam inundation as depicted on General Plan 2025 Program FPEIR Figure 5.8 -2 – Flood Hazard Areas. Therefore, the project will not place a structure within a flood hazard or dam inunda tion area that would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam and therefore no impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively will occur. j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
9j. Response: (Source: GP 2025 FPEIR Chapter 7.5.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality) Tsunamis are large waves that occur in coastal areas; therefore, since the City is not located in a coastal area, no impacts due to tsunamis will occur directly, indirectly or cumulatively.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
10a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Land Use and Urban Design Element, Project site plan, City of Riverside GIS/CADME map layers)
The proposed project has been designed to be consistent with the fit into the pattern of development of the surrounding area providing adequate access, circulation and connectivity consistent with the General Plan 2025, and in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Therefore, the project impacts related to the community are less than significant.
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 19 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 10b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025, General Plan 2025 Figure LU -10 – Land Use Policy Map, Table LU-5 – Zoning/General Plan Consistency Matrix, Figure LU -7 – Redevelopment Areas, Sycamore Canyon Business Park Specific Plan , Title 19 – Zoning Code, Title 18 – Subdivision Code, Title 7 – Noise Code, Title 17 – Grading Code, Title 20 – Cultural Resources Code, Title 16 – Buildings and Construction and Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines)
The proposed project has been designed to be consistent with the surrounding dev elopment providing; adequate access, circulation and connectivity consistent with the General Plan 2025, and in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Therefore, the project impacts related to the community are less than significant. c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
10c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025, General Plan 2025 – Figure LU-10 – Land Use Policy Map, Table LU-5 – Zoning/General Plan Consistency Matrix, Figure LU-7 – Redevelopment Areas, enter appropriate Specific Plan if one, Title 19 – Zoning Code, Title 18 – Subdivision Code, Title 7 – Noise Code, Title 17 – Grading Code, Title 20 – Cultural Resources Code, Title 16 – Buildings and Construction and Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines)
The proposed project is consistent with the guidelines of MSHCP, including Section 6.1.4, Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlife Interface and related policies in the General Plan 2025, including Policy LU -7.4. As well, the project is consistent with the SKR HCP and with General Plan Policy OS -5.3. Impacts will be less than significant directly, indirectly and cumulatively to the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
11. 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?
11a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure – OS-1 – Mineral Resources) The formational material that underlies the project site is the MRZ-3 formation. This formation does not contain recoverable mineral resources or economic value. The loss of known mineral resources valuable locally or regionally would not occur because of the project and no further analysis is required. Therefore, the pro ject will have no impact on mineral resources directly, indirectly or cumulatively. b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
11b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure – OS-1 – Mineral Resources) The GP 2025 FPEIR determined that there are no specific areas with the City of Sphere Area which have locally -important mineral resource recovery sites and that the implementation of the General Plan 2025 would not significantly preclude the ability to ext ract state -designated resources. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan 2025. Therefore, there is no impact.
12. NOISE.
Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
12a. 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 -8 – Riverside and Flabob Airport Noise Contours, Figure N -9 – March ARB Noise Contours, Figure N -10 – Noise/Land Use Noise Comp atibility Criteria, FPEIR Table 5.11 -I – PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 20 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Existing and Future Noise Contour Comparison, Table 5.11 -E – Interior and Exterior Noise Standards, Appendix G – Noise Existing Conditions Report, Title 7 – Noise Code, and Project Specific Noise Study/Acoustical Analysis prepared by Acoustics Group, Inc.) Per Implementation Tool N-1 of the General Plan 2025 Noise Element, this project has been reviewed to ensure that noise standards and compatibility issues have been addressed. An acoustical analysis was prepared for the project. The acoustical analysis concluded that the project will meet the City’s noise standards as set forth in Title 7 of the Municipal Code and is compliant with the Noise/Land Use Noise Compatibility Criteri a Matrix (Figure N -10) of the Noise Element.
Therefore, impacts are less than significant on the exposure of persons to or the generation of noise levels in excess of established City standards either directly, indirectly or cumulatively. b. Exposure of pers ons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
12b. 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 -8 – Riverside and Flabob Airport N oise Contours, Figure N -9 – March ARB Noise Contours, FPEIR Table 5.11-G – Vibration Source Levels For Construction Equipment, Appendix G – Noise Existing Conditions Report and Project Specific Noise Study/Acoustical Analysis prepared by Acoustics Group, Inc.)
Construction related activities although short term, are the most common source of groundborne noise and vibration that could affect occupants of neighboring uses. While intermittent, train vibration is also a significant source of groundborne noise and vibration. Since this project is located next to railroad tracks and will involve short term construction activities an acoustical analysis was prepared. The acoustical analysis has assessed the potential for noise and ground -borne vibration impacts related to noise land use compatibility, construction -related noise per GP 2025 FPEIR, Table 5.11 -G, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, on -site stationary noise sources, and vehicular -related noise. The acoustical analysis found the project to be in compliance with the City’s noise standards and found impacts related to groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels as a result of the project to be less than significant directly, indirectly and cumulatively.
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
12c. 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 -8 – Riverside and Flabob Airport Noise Contours , 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, Appendix G – Noise Existing Conditions Report, Title 7 – Noise Code, and Project Specific Noise Study/Acoustical Analysis prepared by Acoustics Group, Inc.) To determine whether the proposed project would result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels, a noise study was prepared. The noise study concludes development of the property in the manner proposed could result in temporary increases in noise levels, primarily during construction. These activities will be subject to compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and no significant impacts would occur
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
12d. Response: (Source: FPEIR Table 5.11-J – Construction Equipment Noise Levels, Appendix G – Noise Existing Conditions Report and Project Specific Noise Study/Acoustical Analysis prepared by Acoustics Group, Inc.) The primary source of temporary or periodic noise associated with the proposed project is from construction activity and maintenance work. Construction noise typically involves the loudest common urban noise events associat ed with building demolition, grading, construction, large diesel engine s, truck deliveries and hauling . Both the General Plan 2025 and Municipal Code Title 7 (Noise Code) l imit construction activities to specific times and days of the week and during those specified times, construction activity is subject to the noise standards provided in the Title 7. Considering the short -term nature of construction and the provisions of the Noise Code, the temporary and periodic increase in noise levels due to the construction which may result from the project are considered less than significant directly, indirectly and cumulatively.
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 21 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
12e. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure N-8 – Riverside and Flabob Airport Noise Contours, Figure N-9 – March ARB Noise Contour, Figure N -10 – Noise/Land Use Noise Compatibility Criteria, RCALUCP, March Air Reserve Base/March inland Port Comprehensive Land Use Plan (1999), Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study for M arch Air Reserve Base (August 2005) and Project Specific Noise Study/Acoustical Analysis prepared by Acoustics Group, Inc.)
The proposed project is located within Safety and/or Airport Compatibility Zone(s) B1 as depicted on MARB/MIP Joint Land Use Study (JLUS). The project was reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to ensure that the project is consistent with the compatibility zone as well as in compliance with the land use standards in the RCALUP and JLUS. Because the project has been found to be consistent by the ALUC, impacts related to hazards from airports are less than significant impacts directly, indirectly and cumulatively. f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
12f. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-6 – Airport Safety Zones and Influence Areas, RCALUCP, March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port Comprehensive Land Use Plan (1999)and Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study for March Air Reserve Base (August 2005))) Per the GP 2025 Program FPEIR, there are no private airstrips within the City that would expose people working or residing in the City to excessive noise levels. Because the proposed project consists of development anticipated under the General Plan 2025, is not located within proximity of a private airstrip, and does not propose a private airstrip, the project will not expose people residing or working in the City to excessive noise levels related to a private airstrip and would have no impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial 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)?
13a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Table LU -3 – Land Use Designations, FPEIR Table 5.12 -A – SCAG Population and Ho useholds Forecast, Table 5.12 -B – General Plan Population and Employment Projections – 2025, Table 5.12 -C – 2025 General Plan and SCAG Comparisons, Table 5.12 -D - General Plan Housing Projections 2025, Capital Improvement Program and SCAG’s RCP and RTP) The project is in an urbanized area and does not propose new homes or businesses that would directly induce substantial population growth, and does not involve the addition of new roads or infrastructure that would indirectly induce substantial population growth. Therefore, this project will have no impact on population growth either directly or indirectly b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
13b. Response: (Source: CADME Land Use 2003 Layer, photos from site visit, Google imaging etc) The project will not displace existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere because the project site is proposed on vacant land that has no existing housing that will be removed or affected by the proposed project. Therefore, there will be no impact on existing housing either directly, indirectly or cumulatively. c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
13c. Response: (Source: CADME Land Use 2003 Layer, photos from site visit, Google imaging etc.) The project will not displace any people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere because the PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 22 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
project site is proposed on vacant land that has no existing housing or residents that will be removed or affected by the proposed project. Therefore, this project will have no impact on people, necessitating the need for replacement housing either directly, indirectly or cumulatively.
14. 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?
14a. Response: (Source: FPEIR Table 5.13 -B – Fire Station Locations, Table 5.13 -C – Riverside Fire Department Statistics and Ordinance 5948 § 1)
Adequate fire facilities and services are provided to serve this project. Therefore, this project will not result in the intensification of land use and there will be no impact on the demand for additional fire facilities or services either directly, indirectly or cumulatively.
b. Police protection?
14b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-8 – Neighborhood Policing Centers) Adequate police facilities and services are provided to serve this project. In addition, with implementation of General Plan 2025 policies, compliance with existing codes and standards, and through Police Department practices, there will be no impact on the demand for additional police facilities of services either directly, indirectly or cumulatively. c. Schools?
14c. Response: (Source: FPEIR Figure 5.13-2 – RUSD Boundaries, Table 5.13-D – RUSD, Figure 5.13-3 – AUSD Boundaries, Table 5.13 -E – AUSD, Table 5.13 -G – Student Generation for RUSD and AUSD By Education Level, and Figure 5.13-4 – Other School District Boundaries) The project is non -residential use that will not involve the addition of any housing units that would increase numbers of school age children. Therefore, there will be no impact on the demand for additional school facilities or services either directly, indirectly or cumulatively.
d. Parks?
14d. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PR-1 – Parks, Open Spaces and Trails, Table PR -4 – Park and Recreation Facilities, Parks Master Plan 2003, GP 2025 FPEIR Table 5.14 -A – Park and Recreation Facility Types, and Table 5.14-C – Park and Recreation Facilities Funded in the Riverside Renaissance Initiative) The project is a non -residential use that will not involve the addition of any housing units that would increase the population. Therefore, there will be no impact on the demand for additional park facilities or services either di rectly, indirectly or cumulatively.
e. Other public facilities?
14e. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure LU -8 – Community Facilities, FPEIR Figure 5.13 -5 - Library Facilities, Figure 5.13 -6 - Community Centers, Table 5.3 -F – Riverside Community Centers, Table 5.13 -H – Riverside Public Library Service Standards)
Adequate public facilities and service such as libraries and communities centers and are provided to serve this project.
Therefore, this project will not result in the intensification of land use and there will be no impact on the demand for additional public facilities or services either directly, indirectly or cumulatively.
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 23 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
15. 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?
15a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PR -1 – Parks, Open Spaces and Trails, Table PR -4 – Park and Recreation Facilities, Figure CCM -6 – Master plan of Trails and Bikeways, Parks Master Plan 2003, FPEIR Table 5.14-A – Park and Recreation Facili ty Types, and Table 5.14 -C – Park and Recreation Facilities Funded in the Riverside Renaissance Initiative, Table 5.14 -D – Inventory of Existing Community Centers, Riverside Municipal Code Chapter 16.60 - Local Park Development Fees, Bicycle Master Plan May 2007) The project is consistent with the adopted General Plan 2025 and will pay applicable Park Development Impact Fees to the City of Riverside Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department; therefore this project will have a no impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively.
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?
15b. Response:
The project will not include new recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities; therefore, there will be no impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively.
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.
Would the project result in:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
16a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure CCM -4 – Master Plan of Roadways, 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 LO S E or F in 2025, Table 5.15. -K – Freeway Analysis Proposed General Plan, Appendix H – Circulation Element Traffic Study and Traffic Study Appendix, SCAG’s RTP, and if required/recommended by the City’s Traffic Engineer: Project Specific Traff ic Impact Analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers on July 2015)
Roadway capacity is adequate to accommodate the projected traffic volumes, of the proposed project. As determined by the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project, the proposed project will oper ate at better than the required LOS D with implementation of the conditions of approval, and MM-1 Traffic, listed below. Therefore, the increase in traffic in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system is less than significant with Mitigation directly, indirectly or cumulatively.
MM-1 Traffic: The project shall install a second eastbound left turn lane at the signalized intersection of Alessandro Boulevard and the Arco Station (shown as intersection #4 within the Traffic report).
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 24 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
for designated roads or highways?
16b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure CCM-4 – Master Plan of Roadways, 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, Table 5.15. -K – Freeway Analysis Proposed General Plan, Appendix H – Circulation Element Traffic Study and Traffic Study App endix, SCAG’s RTP, and if required/recommended by the City’s Traffic Engineer: Project Specific Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers on July 2015)
Roadway capacity is adequate to accommodate the projected traffic volumes, of the proposed proje ct. As determined by the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project, the proposed project will operate at better than the required LOS D with implementation of the conditions of approval, and MM-1 Traffic, listed below. In addition, the proj ect is consistent with the Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality components of the Program. Therefore, the increase in traffic in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system is less than significant with Mitigation directly, indirectly or cumulatively.
MM-1 Traffic: The project shall install a second eastbound left turn lane at the signalized intersection of Alessandro Boulevard and the Arco Station (shown as intersection #4 within the Traffic report). 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?
16c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS -6 – Airport Safety Zones and Influence Areas, RCALUCP, March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port Comprehensive Land Use Plan (1999)and Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study for March Air Reserve Base (August 2005) The proposed project is located within Safety and/or Airport Compatibility Zone(s) B1 as depicted on MARB/MIP Joint Land Use Study (JLUS). The project was reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to ensure that the project is consistent with the compatibility zone as well as in compliance with the land use standards in the RCALUP and JLUS. Because the project has been found to be consistent by the ALUC, impacts related to hazards from airports are less than significant impacts directly, indirectly and cumulatively. d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
16d. Response: (Source: Project Site Plans, Lane Striping and Signing Plans and if required/recommended by the City’s Traffic Engineer: Project Specific Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers on July 2015) With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed project has been designed so as not to cause any incompatible use or additional or any hazards to the surrounding ar ea or general public. Therefore, this project will have a less than significant impact on increasing hazards through design or incompatible uses either directly, indirectly or cumulatively. e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
16e. Response: (Source: California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual, Municipal Code, and Fire Code)
The project has been developed in compliance with Title 18, Section 18.210.030 and the City’s Fire Code Section 503 (California Fire Code 2007); therefore, there will be no impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively to emergency access. f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities)?
16f. Response: (Source: FPEIR, General Plan 2025 Land Use and Urban Design, Circulation and Community Mobility and Education Elements, Bicycle Master Plan, School Safety Program – Walk Safe! – Drive Safe!) The proposed project as designed is not in conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks , etc.). Therefore, the proposed project impacts related to adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation are less than significant directly, indirectly and cumulatively as conditioned.
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 25 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
17. UTILITIES AND SYSTEM SERVICES.
Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
17a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 F igure PF-2 – Sewer Facilities Map, FPEIR Figure 5.16 -5 – Sewer Service Areas, 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, Figure
5.8-1 – Watersheds, Wastewater Integrated Master Plan and Certified EIR) All new development is required to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program and the City’s Municipal Separate Sewer Permit (MS4), as enforced by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed appl icable wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB with respect to discharges to the sewer system or stormwater system within the City. Because the proposed project is required to adhere to the above regulations related to wastewater treatment the project will have a less than significant impact. b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
17b. Response: (Source: 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), RPU, FPEIR Table 5.16-G – General Plan Projected Water Demand for RPU Including Water Reliability for 2025, Table 5.16-I - Current and Projected Water Use WMWD, Table 5.16 - J - General Plan Projected Water Demand for WMWD Including Water Reliability 2025, 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, Figure 5.16 -4 – Water Facilities and Figure 5.16-6 – Sewer Infrastructure and Wastewater Integrated Master Plan and Certified EIR.) The project will not result in the construction of n ew or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities. 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). Therefore, the project will have no impact resulting in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities directly, indirectly or cumulatively. c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
17c. Response: (Source: FPEIR Figure 5.16-2 - Drainage Facilities) The increase in impervious surface area will generate increased storm water flows with potential to impact drainage facilities and require the provision of additional facilities. However, the Subdivision Code (Title 18, Section 18.48.020) requires drainage fees to be paid to the City for new construction. Fees are transferred into a drainage facilities fund that is maintained by Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. This Section also complies with the California Government Code (section 66483) , which provides for the payment of fees for construction of drainage facilities. Fees are required to be paid as part of the conditions of approval/waiver for filing of a final map or parcel map.
General Plan 2025 Policies PF 4.1 and PF 4.3 require the C ity to continue to routinely monitor its storm drain system and to fund and improve those systems as identified in the City’s Capital Improvement plan. Implementation of these policies will ensure that the City is adequately served by drainage systems. T he General Plan 2025 also includes policies and programs that will minimize the environmental effects of the development of such facilities. Therefore, the project will have less than significant on existing storm water drainage facilities that would not r equire the expansion of existing facilities directly, indirectly or cumulatively.
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 26 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
expanded entitlements needed?
17d. Response: (Source: 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, Table 5.16 -G – General Plan Projected Water Demand for RPU including Water Reliability for 2025, Table 5.16 -H – Current and Projected Domestic Water Supply (a cre-ft/year) WMWD Table 5.16 -I Current and Projected Water Use WMWD, Table 5.16 -J – General Plan Projected Water Demand for WMWD Including Water Reliability 2025, RPU Master Plan, EMWD Master Plan, WMWD Master Plan, and Highgrove Water District Master Plan) The project will not exceed expected water supplies. The project is consistent with the General Plan 2025 Ty pical Growth Scenario where future water supplies were determined to be adequate (see Tables t.16 -E, 5.16-F, 5.16-G, 5.16-H, 5.16-I and 5.16-J of the General Plan 2025 Final PEIR). Therefore, the project will have no impact resulting in the insufficient water supplies either directly, indirectly or cumulatively. e. 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?
17e. Response: (Source: FPEIR Figure 5.16 -5 - Sewer Service Areas, Figure 5.16 -6 -Sewer Infrastructure, Table
5.16-K - Estimated Future Wastewater Generation for the City of Riverside’s Sewer Service Area, Table 5.16 -L - Estimated Future Wastewater Generation for t he Planning Area Served by WMWD , and Wastewater Integrated Master Plan and Certified EIR)
The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of (Regional Water Quality Control Board). The project is consistent with the General Plan 2025 Typical Growth Scenario where future wastewater generation was determined to be adequate (see Table 5.16-K of the General Plan 2025 Final PEIR). Further, the current Wastewater Treatment Master Plan anticipates and provides for this type of project. Therefore, no impact to wastewater treatment directly, indirectly or cumulatively will occur.
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
17f. Response: (Source: FPEIR Table 5.16-A – Existing Landfills and Table 5.16-M – Estimated Future Solid Waste Generation from the Planning Area)
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). Therefore, no impact to landfill capacity will occur directly, indirectly or cumulatively. g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
17g. Response: (Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board 2002 Landfill Facility Compliance Study) The California Integrated Waste Management Act under the Public Resource Code requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50% of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. The City is currently achieving a 60% diversion rate, well above State requirements. In addition, the California Green Building Code requires all developments to divert 50% of non- hazardous construction and demolition debris for all projects and 100% of excavated soil and land clearing debris for all non-residential projects beginn ing January 1, 2011. The proposed project must comply with the City’s waste disposal requirements as well as the California Green Building Code and as such would not conflict with any Federal, State, or local regulations related to solid waste. Therefore , no impacts related to solid waste statutes will occur directly, indirectly or cumulatively.
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 27 P14-0841, P14-0842, P14-0843, P14-0844, P14-0846 & P14-0847
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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?
18a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 – Figure OS -6 – Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Core Reserve and Other Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP), Figure OS -7 – MSHCP Cores and Linkages, Figure OS -8 – MSHCP Cell Areas, General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.4-2 – 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, Figure 5.4 -8 – MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area, MSHCP Section 6.1 .2 - Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, and Habitat Assessment, FPEIR Table 5.5 -A Historical Districts and Neighborhood Conservation Areas, Figure 5.5 -1 - Archaeological Sensitivity, Figure 5.5 -2 - Prehistoric C ultural Resources Sensitivity, Appendix D, Title 20 of the Riverside Municipal Code, and site specific Cultural Resources Survey) Potential impacts related to habitat of fish or wildlife species were discussed in the Biological Resources Section of this Initial Study, and were all found to be less than significant with mitigation . Additionally, potential impacts to cultural, archaeological and paleontological resources related to major periods of California and the City of Riverside’s history or prehistory were discussed in the Cultural Resources Section of this Initial Study, and were found to be less than significant with mitigation.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” me ans 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)?
18b. Response: (Source: FPEIR Section 6 – Long-Term Effects/ Cumulative Impacts for the General Plan 2025 Program)
Because the project is consistent with the General Plan 2025, no new cumulative impacts are anticipated and therefore cumulative impacts of the proposed project beyond those previously considered in the GP 2025 FPEIR are less than significant.
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
18c. Response: (Source: FPEIR Section 5 – Environmental Impact Analysis for the General Plan 2025 Program) Effects on human beings were evaluated as part of the aesthetics, air quality, hydrology & water quality, noise, population and housing, public facilities, hazards and hazardous materials, re creation, and transportation traffic sections of this initial study. Project impacts related to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, and Traffic/Transportation are potentially significant, however can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Based on t he analysis and conclusions in this initial study, the project, with mitigation, will not cause substantial adverse effects, directly or indirectly to human beings. Therefore, potential direct and indirect impacts on human beings that result from the propo sed project are less than significant with mitigation.
Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 2 1083, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296 (1988); Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal.App.3d 1337 (1990).
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 28 Case Number
Staff Recommended Mitigation Measures
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring Party1
Monitoring/Reporting Method
Air Quality
MM Air 1 : To reduce diesel emissions associated
with construction, construction contractors shall
provide temporary electricity to the site to eliminate
the need for diesel -powered electric generators, or
provide evidence that electrical hook ups at
construction sites are not cost effective or feasible.
Prior to issuance of grading
and/or building permits.
Building & Safety Division
Public Works Department
Proof of power source to be
provided from electric service
provider.
MM Air 2: To reduce construction related
particulate matter air quality impacts of City projects the following measures shall be required:
1. the generation of dust shall be controlled as
required by the AQMD;
2. grading activities shall cease during periods of
high winds (greater than 25 mph);
3. trucks hauling soil, dirt or other emissive
materials shall have their loads covered with a
tarp or other protective cover as determined by
the City Engineer; and
4. the contractor shall prepare and maintain a
traffic control plan, pr epared, stamped and
signed by either a licensed Traffic Engineer or
a Civil Engineer. The preparation of the plan
shall be in accordance with Chapter 5 of the
latest edition of the Caltrans Traffic Manual
and the State Standard Specifications. The plan
shall be submitted for approval, by the
engineer, at the preconstruction meeting. Work
shall not commence without an approved traffic
control plan.
Prior to issuance of individual
grading and/or building
permit.
The plan for traffic control
shall be submitted with the
grading and/or building plans.
Public Works Department Construction Inspection.
Cultural
Resources
MM CR 1 : At least 30 days prior to beginning
Project construction, the Project Applicant shall
contact the Tribes of grading, excavation, and the
monitoring program and, if a Cultural Resources
Treatment and Monitoring Agreement has not been
developed, to develop a Cultural Resources
Treatment and Monitoring Agreement between the
Applicant and the Tribes. The Agreement shall
Site-Specific Environmental
Review and/or prior to the
issuance of a demolition,
grading and/or building
permit.
Planning Division
Public Works Department
Compliance with Project
Conditions of Approval.
1 All agencies are City of Riverside Departments/Divisions unless otherwise noted.
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND Environmental Initial Study 29 Case Number
Impact
Category Mitigation Measures Implementation Timing Responsible Monitoring Party1
Monitoring/Reporting Method
address the tre atment of known cultural resources,
the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Native American Tribal monitors
during grading, excavation and ground disturbing
activities; project grading and development
scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors;
and treatment and final disposition of any cultural
resources, sacred sites, and human remains
discovered on the site.
MM CR 2 : If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface
archaeological/cultural resources are discovered
during grading, the developer, the project
archaeologist, and the Tribe(s) shall assess the
significance of such resources and shall meet and
confer regarding the m itigation for such resources.
Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code 21083.2(b)
avoidance is the preferred method for archaeological
resources. If the developer, the project
archaeologist, and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the
significance or the mitigation for such resources,
these issues will be presented to the Community
Development Director for decision. The Community
Development Director shall make the determination
based on the provisions of CEQA with respect to the
archaeological resources and shall take i nto account
the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the
Tribe(s). Notwithstanding any other rights available
under the lay, the decision of the Community
Development Direct shall be appealable to the
Planning Commission and/or City Council.
Site-Specific Environmental
Review and/or prior to the
issuance of a demolition,
grading and/or building
permit.
Planning Division
Public Works Department
Compliance with Project
Conditions of Approval.
Traffic MM-1 Traffic: The project shall install a second eastbound left turn lane at the signalized intersection of Alessandro Boulevard and the Arco Station
(shown as intersection #4 within the Traffic report).
Site-Specific Environmental
Review.
Planning Division
Public Works Department
Compliance with Project
Conditions of Approval.
PR-2020-000519 (GPA, SPA, RZ, VR, GE, DR), Exhibit 14 - Addendum to MND