1 Community & Economic Development Department Planning Division 3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 | Phone: (951) 826-5371 | RiversideCA.gov
FROM LEAD AGENCY: Judy Egüez, Senior Planner
City of Riverside
Community & Economic Development Department, Planning Division 3900 Main Street, 3rd floor
Riverside, California 92522
DATE: July 19, 2022
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Wood and Lurin Planned Residential Development Project
The City of Riverside will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed residential project known as the Wood & Lurin Planned Residential Development Project (Project). The City is requesting input from you or your agency or organization as to the scope and content of the environmental information that is relevant to your agency or organization’s statutory responsibilities or interests in connection with the proposed Project.
This Notice of Preparation (NOP) identifies the Project applicant, contains the proposed Project description including Project setting and location, and identifies the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project. A regional map and vicinity map are included in this NOP as Attachment 1 and 2.
Due to t ime limits mandated by State law, your response must be received at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this NOP. The public comment period for this NOP begins on July 19, 2022 and is set to close at 5:00 p.m. on August 18, 2022.
Please send written responses to Judy Egü ez at the address shown above or via e- mail at [email protected]. Please include the name and contact person in your agency.
DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The Initial Study is available on the City's website at https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/development-projects-and-ceqa-documents or contact Judy Egüez at 951-826-3969 or via e-mail at [email protected] to obtain a PDF of the Initial Study.
PROJECT TITLE: Wood and Lurin Planned Residential Development Project – Planning Case No. PR- 2021-001053 (Planned Residential Development Permit, Tentative Tract Map, Agricultural Preserve Diminishment, Design Review, and Environmental Impact Report)
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
2 PROJECT APPLICANT: Brett Crowder, Coastal Commercial Properties PROJECT LOCATION: The project is located in the southern portion of the City of Riverside and bordered by Krameria Avenue to the north and Lurin Avenue to the south. The southern portion of the Project site extends west to Wood Road and east to Dant Street. The Project site consists of three parcels totaling
18.92 acres (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 266-130-016, 266-130-023, and 266-130-024).
PROJECT SETTING: The project site includes approximately 18.92 acres and consists of three parcels.
The site has been previously disturbed and is undeveloped except for a vacant single- family residence and shed structure that is on the northwest corner of Lurin Avenue and Dant Street. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential to the north, east, and west. Land south of the project site is currently vacant and designated for development of single-family residential.
PROJECT GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS: The project site has a General Plan land use designation of MDR - Medium Density Residential and LDR - Low Density Residential. The site has a zoning designation of R -1-13000-SP - Single Family Residential and Specific Plan (Orangecres t) Overlay Zones and OSP -RA-SP – Residential Agricultural and Specific Plan (Orangecrest) Overlay Zones.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project includes a total of 96 single- family residences . The residences would range in size from 2,651 to 3,121 square feet and would provide 4 bedroom/3.5 bathrooms and 5 bedrooms/4 bathrooms. Each residence would have a front porch and rear yard/private open space area. A total of 64 units are proposed to be four-bedrooms and 32 are proposed to be five- bedrooms. The proposed project includes the following amenities: a 61,909 square foot common open space recreation area with an open turf play area, a tot lot with playground equipment, 2 half -court basketball courts, park benches, picnic tables, overhead trellis, and landscaping; and a 10-foot-wide multi- purpose trail recreational trail within the landscaped setback along the eastern side of Wood Road.
The Project would be accessed from both Krameria Avenue and Lurin Avenue. The proposed private street system would include 5-foot-wide concrete sidewalks and pedestrian street crossings to provide for safe pedestrian circulation. The Project also includes a 35-foot setback would be located along Wood Road that would have a 10 -foot-wide multi-purpose trail. Project construction would include demolition, grubbing, grading, excavation, and re-compaction of soils, utility, and infrastructure installation, building construction, roadway pavement, and architec tural coatings. Construction is anticipated to take approximately 18 months to be completed.
The following environmental review and entitlements are requested for implementation of the proposed project:
• Tentative Tract Map (TTM-38094) – To subdivide 18.92 acres into 96 single-family residential lots and lettered lots for common open space and private streets. • Planned Residential Development Permit (PRD) – To permit the establishment of detached single-family swellings, common opens space and private streets. • Agricultural Preserve Diminishment (AP) – To diminish the Woodcrest Agricultural Preserve No. 7.
• Design Review (DR) – Proposed site design and building elevations. • Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
3 Project Alternatives: Identification of potential alternatives to the Wood and Lurin Planned Residential Development project will be addressed as part of the EIR. Analysis of a “No Project” alternative is required by law. In addition to the “No Project” Alternative, at least two additional alternatives will be evaluated. The evaluation of alternatives will provide a comparative analysis of alternatives to the proposed development.
The EIR will identify the degree to which each alternative might reduce one or more of the impacts associated with the development of the Wood and Lurin Planned Residential Development project, whether or not the alternative could result in other or increased impacts, the viability of the alternative, and the degree to which the alternative is consistent with the City and Applicant’s Project Objectives Cumulative Impact Analysis: The EIR will include a discussion of the potentially significant cumulative impacts of the Wood and Lurin Planned Residential Development project when considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area.
Other Required Sections: The EIR will also include other information typically required for an EIR. These other sections include the following: 1) Introduction; 2) Project Description; 3) Effects Found Not to Be Significant; 4) Environmental Impact Analysis; 5) Growth-Inducing Impacts; 6) Significant Unavoidable Environmental Effects; 7) Significant Irreversible Changes; 8) Consistency with Regional Plans; 9) Discussion and Analysis of Energy Conservation based on Appendix F and G of CEQA Guidelines; 10) Mitigation Measures; 11) References; and 12) List of Preparers.
Based on the analysis contained in the Initial Study and Appendices, the following topics have been determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact and therefore will not be analyzed further in the forthcoming EIR:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture & Forest Resources
• Air Quality
• Energy
• Geology/Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Waste
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
And based on the analysis contained in the Initial Study, the following topics have been determined to have a potentially significant impact and will be addressed in the forthcoming EIR:
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Noise
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
4 Relevant technical reports will be provided as EIR appendices.
SCOPING MEETING: A virtual scoping meeting will be held about this project.
Meeting Information: Wednesday, August 3, 2022
6:00 – 7:00 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time)
View the virtual meeting live webcast at:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87592584862
or
Call in: 1 (669) 900 6833
Webinar ID: 875 9258 4862
Note: No pre-registration is required. Entering the web address above will directly take you to the broadcast room sign-in. First name and email address are required to enter the broadcast room to keep track of attendees.
At this meeting, agencies, organizations, and members of the public will be provided a brief presentation on the project and will be able to review the proposed project and provide comments on the scope of the environmental review process for the proposed Wood and Lurin Planned Residential Development project.
SIGNATURE:
TITLE: Judy Egüez, Senior Planner – City of Riverside
TELEPHONE: 951-826-3969
DATE: 7/19/2022
5 ATTACHMENT 1: REGIONAL LOCATION
6 ATTACHMENT 2: PROJECT VICINITY
Draft Initial Study 1 PR-2021-001053
W
ARD: 4
1. C
ase Number: PR-2021-001053 (Planned Residential Development Permit, Tentative Tract Map, Agricultural Preserve Diminishment, Design Review , Environmental Impact Report)
2. P
roject Title: Wood & Lurin Planned Residential Development Project
3. Da
te: July 19, 2022
4. L
ead Agency: City of Riverside
Community & Economic Development Department
Planning Division
3900 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92522
5. C
ontact Person: Judy Eguez, Senior Planner
Phone Number: (951) 826-5371
P
roject Location: The proposed Wood and Lurin Planned Residential Development Project (“Project” or “proposed Project”) is located in the southern portion of the City of Riverside, as shown on Figure 1, Regional Location. As depicted in Figure 2, Aerial View, the Project site is bordered by Krameria Avenue to the north and Lurin Avenue to the south. The southern portion of the Project site extends west to Wood Road and east to Dant Street. The Project site consists of three parcels totaling 18.92 acres (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 266-130-016, 266-130-023, and 266-130-024). In addition, the Project site is located in Section 29 Southwest of Township 3 South, Range 4 West of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, and within the Riverside East USGS Quadrangle.
6. Pr
oject Applicant/Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
C
oastal Commercial Properties
1020 Second Street, Suite C
Encinitas, CA 92024
7. G
eneral Plan Designation: The northern portion of the Project site (APN 266-130-024 and a portion of APN 266-130-023) has a General Plan land use designation of MDR - Medium Density Residential. The southern portion of the site (a portion of APN 266-130-023 and all of APN 266 -130-016) has a General Plan land us e de
signation of LDR - Low Density Residential. (Figure 3, Existing General Plan Designations).
8. Z
oning: The site has a zoning designation of R-1-13000-SP - Single Family Residential and Specific Pla n (O
rangecrest) Overlay Zones and in the OSP-RA-SP – Residential Agricultural and Specific Plan (Orangecrest) Overlay Zones. (Figure 4, Existing Zoning Designation and Specific Plan Planning Areas).
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Figure 1
Regional Location
Wood and Lurin Residential Project Initial Study
Draft Initial Study 3 PR-2021-001053
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Figure 2
Aerial View
Wood and Lurin Residential Project Initial Study
Draft Initial Study 5 PR-2021-001053
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Existing General Plan Designations
Figur e 3Wood and Lurin Residential Project Initial Study LDR - Low Density Residential
MDR - Medium Density Residential
Draft Initial Study 7 PR-2021-001053
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Figur e 4
Existing Zoning Designation and Specific Plan Planning Areas Wood and Lurin Residential Project Initial Study
Planning Area 107-B
Planning Area 107-C
R-1-13000-SP
R-1-8500-SP
Draft Initial Study 9 PR-2021-001053
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Wood and Lurin Residential Project Initial Study Figure 5 Conceptual Site Plan
Draft Initial Study 11 PR-2021-001053
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Figure 6
Elevations
Plan 1
Plan 2
Plan 3
Wood and Lurin Residential Project Initial Study
Draft Initial Study 13 PR-2021-001053
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Wood and Lurin Residential Project Initial Study
Conceptual Landscape Plan
Figur e 7
Draft Initial Study 15 PR-2021-001053
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Figure 8
Existing Views of the Site
Views of the southeastern boundary of the Project site from the intersection of Dant and Lurin Avenue.
Views of the northern boundary of the project site from the intersection of Meadow Ln and Krameria Ave.
Views of the southwestern boundary of the Project site from the intersection of Wood Rd and Lurin Ave.
Wood and Lurin Residential Project Initial Study
Draft Initial Study 17 PR-2021-001053
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Initial Study 18 PR-2021-001053
9. Existing Setting: The Project site includes approximately 18.925 acres and consists of three parcels. The site has been previously disturbed and is undeveloped except for a vacant single-family residence and shed structure that is on the northwest corner of Lurin Avenue and Dant Street. An aerial of the P roject site is provided as Figure 2, Aerial View. The Project site is bounded by roadways and residential uses to the north and west, and east; and approved single-family residential uses to the south. Community facilities near the Project site include Mark Twain Elementary School approximately 0.2-mile to the east at the intersection of Krameria Avenue and Close Avenue, and Bethesda Revival Center religious facility directly west of the Project site at the intersection of Wood Road and Woodcrest Lane.
10. Description of P roject: The following environmental review and entitlements are requested for implementation of the proposed Project: 1) Tentative Tract Map (TM 38094) to subdivide 18.92-acres into 96 s
ingle-family residential lots and lettered lots for common open space and private streets; 2) Planned Residential Development Permit (PRD) for the establishment of detached single-family dwellings, common open space and private streets; 3) Design Review of Project plans; 4) Agricultural Preserve Diminishment (AP) to diminish the Woodcrest Agricultural Preserve No. 7 ; and 5) Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Refer to Figure 6 , C
onceptual Site Plan.
T
he proposed 96 single-family residences would include three different two-story floor plan options. As shown in t
he table below, the residences would range in size from 2,651 to 3,121 square feet and would provide 4 bedroom/3.5 bathrooms and 5 bedrooms/4 bathrooms. Each residen ce would have a front porch and rear yard/private open space area. Minimum setbacks for each parcel would be 15 foot front building setbacks (not including any proposed porch structures) and 5 foot side building setbacks.
Number of Units Square Footage Bedrooms Bathrooms
Plan 1 Units 32 2,651 4 3.5
Plan 2 Units 32 2,844 4 3.5
Plan 3 Units 32 3,121 5 4
Architectural Design
The proposed two-story single-family residences would be a maximum of 35 feet in height and designed with Modern Agrarian, Coastal, and Santa Barbara architectural elements with multi-level pitched rooflines, and earth tone color schemes. The residences would incorporate vertical and horizontal siding, shingle siding, stone veneer, stucco finishes, decorative gables and columns, detailed roof elements, porch details , accent tiles, shutters, iron railings, corbel details, and decorative windows and doors in the exterior design. Figure 6, Elevations, illustrate the proposed exterior elevations for Plans 1 through 3.
Solar Panels
Consistent with the 2019 CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24 Part 6), the Project would include photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on the rooftop of each residence to offset its energy demand.
C
irculation
The Project would be accessed from both Krameria Avenue and Lurin Avenue. The proposed onsite street system would include 5 -foot-wide concrete sidewalks and pedestrian street crossings to provide for safe pedestrian circulation. The Project also includes a 3 5-foot setback would be located along Wood Road that would have a 10-foot-wide multi-purpose trail.
Pa
rking
The proposed P roject would provide garage, driveway, and on- street parking. Each residence would have a minimum of a two-car garage and a minimum of two driveway parking spaces. The Project would also provide 110 on-street parking spaces for residences and visitors.
Draft Initial Study 19 PR-2021-001053
Recreation and Open Space
The Project would provide onsite open space and recreational areas including:
• A 61,909 square foot common open space recreation area with an open turf play area , a tot lot with playground equipment, 2 half-court basketball courts, park benches, picnic tables, overhead trellis, and landscaping; and
• A 10-foot-wide multi-purpose trail recreational trail within the landscaped setback along the eastern side of Wood Road.
Landscaping
The proposed Project would install ornamental trees along Wood Road, Krameria Avenue, Lurin Avenue, the interior Project streets, and in the onsite common open space areas (see Figure 7, Conceptual Landscaping Plan). The proposed landscaping includes a variety of drought tolerant shrubs, gr ound covers, and City - approved street tree species ranging from 24- to 36-inch box specimens.
Walls and Fences
The Project site would have a 6-foot-high decorative masonry perimeter wall with pilasters and an 8-inch cap and the single-family residences would be separated by 5-foot, 6-inch-high vinyl fences. In addition, decorative masonry walls would be installed at all returns between the residences and the property lines.
Water and Sewer
The proposed Project would install onsite 8-inch water and sewer lines that would be located within each of the residential streets and serve each of the proposed residences. The new onsite water lines would connect to the existing 12-inch water line in Wood Road and the existing 8-inch and 24-inch lines Krameria Avenue. The new onsite sewer lines would connect to the existing 8-inch sewer line in Lurin Avenue.
Drainage
The Project would install an onsite stormwater drainage system that would convey runoff to catch basins throughout the site that would convey flows to proposed two bioretention basins that would treat and infiltrate runoff. One bioretention basin would be located in the western portion of the site adjacent to Wood Road and the other would be located in the southern portion of the site along Lurin Avenue. The basins would connect to a detention pipe system and would discharge runoff to the existing storm drain line within Wood Road. In an addition, a basin culvert would provide an overflow outlet to Wood Road.
Construction
Project construction would include demolition, grubbing, grading, excavation, and re -compaction of soils, utility, and infrastructure installation, building construction, roadway pavement, and architectural coatings. The construction includes 32,380 cubic yards of cut and 39,590 cubic yards of fill, resulting in 7,210 cubic yards of imported fill. Maximum excavation depth is anticipated to be approximately 4 -feet below the existing ground surface. Construction activities are anticipated to last approximately 18 months as detailed on the table below and would occur within the hours allowable by the City of Riverside Municipal Code Section 9.09.030, which states that construction shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. No construction would occur on Sundays and legal holidays.
Construction Phase Working Days
Demolition 5
Site Preparation 10
Grading 30
Building Construction 300
Paving 20
Architectural Coatings 20
Draft Initial Study 20 PR-2021-001053
11. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project’s surroundings:
Existing Land
Use
General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation
Project Site
Majority is
undeveloped,
except for a vacant
single-family
residence
Medium Density
Residential (MDR);
Low Density
Residential (LDR)
R-1-13000-SP – Single Family
Residential and Specific Plan
(Orangecrest) Overlay Zones;
OSP-RA-SP – Residential
Agricultural and Specific Plan
(Orangecrest) Overlay Zones
North Single-Family
Residential
Medium Density
Residential (MDR)
R-1-7000-SP – Single Family
Residential and Specific Plan
(Orangcrest) Overlay Zones
East Single-Family
Residential
Medium Density
Residential (MDR);
Low Density
Residential (LDR)
R-1-8500-SP – Single Family
Residential and Specific Plan
(Orangecrest) Overlay Zones;
R-1-13000-SP – Single Family
Residential and Specific Plan
(Orangecrest) Overlay Zones
South Vacant Low Density
Residential (LDR)
R-1-13000-SP – Single Family
Residential and Specific Plan
(Orangecrest) Overlay Zones
West Single-Family
Residential
Medium Density
Residential (MDR);
Low Density
Residential (LDR)
R-1-8500-SP – Single Family
Residential and Specific Plan
(Orangecrest) Overlay Zones;
R-1-13000-SP – Single Family
Residential and Specific Plan
(Orangecrest) Overlay Zones
12. Other public agencies whose approval is r equired (e.g., permits, financial approval, or participation agreement.):
a. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana Region – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit b. RWQCB, Santa Ana Region – Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) c. RWQCB, Santa Ana Region – Section 401 Water Quality Certification- Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR)
e. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) – Dust Control Plan
13. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significant impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Per Assembly Bill 52, Native American consultation is required upon request by a California Native American tribe that has previously requested that the City provide it with notice of such Project. On June 3, 2021 the City of Riverside sent the required notices to the relative tribes though certified mail. The following Native American Tribes were notified: Morongo Band of Mission Indians, San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indian, Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, Cahuilla Band of Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.
Draft Initial Study 21 PR-2021-001053
Responses were received from three Native American tribes, two of which ( the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians and Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians ) requested consultation with the City of Riverside pursuant to Public Resources Code 21080.3.1.
14. Other Environmental Reviews Incorporated by Reference in this Review:
a. City of Riverside General Plan 2025
b. City of Riverside General Plan 2025 Final Program Environmental Impact Report (GP 2025 FPEIR) c. Orangecrest Specific Plan
d. Title 20, Cultural Resources
e. Title 17, Grading Code
15. List of Appendices
A Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis B Focused Cultural Resources Survey – Historic Resources Assessment C Geotechnical Evaluation
D Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
E Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
F Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan
G Phase I ESA
H Phase II ESA
I Preliminary WQMP
J Preliminary Hydrology Study
K Noise Impact Analysis
16. Acronyms
AFY- acre-feet per year
AICUZ - Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study
APN- Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP - Air Quality Management Plan
BMPs- Best Management Plans
CAA- Clean Air Act
CBC- California Building Code
CCR- California Code of Regulations
CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act
CMP - Congestion Management Plan
CWA- Clean Water Act
EIR - Environmental Impact Report
EMWD - Eastern Municipal Water District
EOP - Emergency Operations Plan
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEIR - GP 2025 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report GIS - Geographic Information System
GHG - Green House Gas
GP 2025 - General Plan 2025
gpd- Gallons Per Day
HCP- Habitat Conservation Plan
HVAC- Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IS - Initial Study
Draft Initial Study 22 PR-2021-001053
LDR- Low Density Residential
LHMP - Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LID- Low Impact Development
LOS- Level of Service
LST- Local Significance Thresholds
MARB/MIP - March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port
MDR- Medium Density Residential
mgd- million gallons daily
MJPA-JLUS - March Joint Powers Authority - Joint Land Use Study MSHCP - Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
NAHC- Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP - Natural Communities Conservation Plan
NPDES- – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OEM - Office of Emergency Services
OPR - Office of Planning & Research, State
OSP- Orangecrest Specific Plan
PEIR - Program Environmental Impact Report
PRC- Public Resource Code
PRD- Planned Residential Development
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
RWQCB- Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAG - Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD - South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCH - State Clearinghouse
SKR-HCP - Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat - Habitat Conservation Plan SRA- Source Receptor Area
SWPPP - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
USACE- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USGS - United States Geologic Survey
UST- Underground Storage Tank
UWMP- Urban Water Management Plan
VLDR- Very Low Density Residential
WMWD - Western Municipal Water District
WQMP - Water Quality Management Plan
Draft Initial Study 23 PR-2021-001053
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture & Forest Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems
Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this i nitial evaluation which reflects the independent judgment of the City of Riverside, it is recommended that:
The City of Riverside finds that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The City of Riverside finds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The City of Riverside finds that the proposed project MAY have a sign ificant 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” o r “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 ear lier 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 fin ds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Printed Name & Title Judy Egüez, Associate Planner For City of Riverside
Environmental Initial Study 1 PR-2021-001053
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measure which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sour ces used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Draft INITIAL STUDY
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION Environmental Initial Study 2 PR-2021-001053
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. t
he significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. t
he mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Environmental Initial Study 3 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. AESTHETICS.
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure CCM -4 – Master Plan of Roadways, General Plan 2025 FEIR Figure 5.1-1 – Scenic and Special Boulevards and Parkways, Table 5.1- A – Scenic and Special Boulevards, and Table 5.1-B – Scenic Parkways)
Less Than Significant Impact. Scenic vistas can be impacted by development in two ways. First, a structure may be constructed that blocks the view of a vista. Second, the vista itself may be altered (i.e., development on a scenic hillside). The City of Riverside’s General Plan 2025 Open Space and Conservation element states that Riverside's natural features provide a dramatic and varied topographic setting for the community. Scenic resources enhance the visual character of Riverside and provide distinguishing characteristics. The hillsides and ridgelines above Riverside offer scenic benefits to the community, as they serve as landmarks and offer a sense of direction or orientation as people move around the City.
Long-distance scenic vistas of these hills can be seen above and beyond the existing residential development and along roadway corridors within the Project vicinity. None of the roadways in the Project vicinity are designated scenic boulevards or parkways by the General Plan. The City’s General Plan 2025 policies aim at balancing development interests with broader community preservation objectives. Wit h implementation of the P roject, existing views from Lurin Avenue , Krameria Avenue, and Wood Road street corridors would remain the same. Development of the proposed two- story residences on the Project site would not hinder any scenic vistas or panoramic views. The proposed two-story residences would be set back a minimum of 40-feet from public roadways ( 15-foot building setback plus 25-foot landscaped buffers ). Thus, the existing long-distance views of hills from the public roadway corridors, would not be diminished. In addition, the P roject site and vicinity are not designated by the City’s General Plan for the preservation or uniqueness of scenic views. Therefore, impacts related to scenic vistas would be less than significant impact. 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 FEIR 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 Policy Manual, Title 20 – Cultural Resources and, Title 19 – Article V – Chapter 19.100 – Residential Zones - RC Zone), (Orangecrest Specific Plan), and Focused Cultural Resources Survey – Historic Resources Assessment prepared by Material Culture Consulting in March 2021 No Im
pact. There are no scenic highways within the City that could potentially be impacted. In addition, the proposed Project is not located along or within view of a scenic boulevard, parkway or special boulevard as designated by the City’s General Plan 2025. Therefore, the Project would not have any effect on any scenic resources within a scenic roadway. As well, there are no rock outcroppings. A historic-aged building was identified on the Project site; however, it was not determined to be a historic resource (see Section 5, Cultural Resources). Therefore, there would be no impacts to scenic resources within a state scenic highway. .
c. In non -urbanized areas, s ubstantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly-accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would t he project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
Environmental Initial Study 4 PR-2021-001053
1c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure CCM-4 – Master Plan of Roadways, General Plan 2025 FEIR 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 , City of Riverside, Citywide Design Guidelines and Sign Guidelines . Accessed :
https://riversideca.gov/cedd/sites/riversideca.gov.cedd/files/pdf/planning/Citywide_Design_and_Sign_Guidelines_ web%20version_Amended%2001-15-19_1.pdf )
Less Than Significant Impact. As described previously, the Project site generally undeveloped with exception of one residential structure and is located within a partially urbanized area. The site is adjacent to roadways to the north, south, east, and west; and areas of the site perimeter that are not adjacent to roadways are adjacent to residential land uses. The lands on the site have been disturbed from past uses and the existing character of the Project site and surrounding area is neither unique nor of special aesthetic value or quality. The proposed residential developme nt would develop 96 single-family residences, open space/recreation areas, and private streets on the Project site.
General Plan
As shown in Figure 3, Existing General Plan Designations , the northern portion of the site has a General Plan land use designation of MDR -Medium Density Residential that allows up to 6.2 units per acre or 8 units per acre with a Planned Residential Development (PRD); and the southern portion of the site has a General Plan land use designation o f LDR-Low Density Residential that allows up to 4.1 units per acre or 6 units per acre with a PRD. The P roject site is also within the Orangecrest Specific Plan Planning Areas 107 -C and 107 -B. The surrounding areas are designated as either Low Density Residential or Medium Density Residential, which both allow for single -family residences. The proposed P roject would result in an overall density of 5 .07 du/acre, which is consistent and compatible with the surrounding residential densities.
Thus, the Project would not conflict with applicable General Plan buildout densities that govern scenic quality.
Zoning
The site is zoned of R-1-13000-SP - Single Family Residential and Orangecrest Specific Plan (OSP) Overlay Zone and in the OSP-RA-SP – Residential Agricultural and Specific Plan (Orangecrest) Overlay Zones. Overlay Planning Area 107- B (the northern portion of the site) provides for development consistent with R-1-8500 Single Family Residential Zone and Overlay Planning Area 107-C (the southern portion of the site) provides for development consistent with R -1-13,000 Single Family Residential Zone upon diminishment of Woodcrest Agricultural Preserve No. 7, which is part of the proposed P roject.
The R-1-8500 - Single-family Residential zone has an allowable density of 6.3 dwelling units per gross acre with a PRD, and the R-1-13000 - Single-family Residential zone has an allowable density of 4.8 dwelling units per gross acre with a PRD .
Both zones allow two-story residences up to 35-feet in height.
The Project would develop 24 residential units within the 3.783 -acre northern portion of the site identified as Planning Area 107-B in the Orangecrest Specific Plan , which would result in 6.3 units per acre and would be consistent with the allowable density. The Project would also develop 72 residential units w ithin the southern 15.136-acre portion of the site, identified as Planning Area 107- C in the Orangecrest Specific Plan , which would result in 4.7 units per acre and would be within the allowable density. As shown in Table AES-1, the proposed Project would be consistent with the other development standards outlined in Sections 19.780.040 and 19.780.060 of the City’s Municipal Code.
Table AES-1: Project Consistency with Zoning Development Standards Development Standard R-1 Zone Proposed
Setback from Project Perimeter 20 ft 20 ft
Setbacks within Project Boundaries1
Front Setback 10 ft 13 ft
Rear Setback 10 ft 15 ft
Side-Yard Setback 5 ft 5 ft
Common Usable Open Space 500 sf per unit 645 sf per unit Private Open Space 200 square feet +785 square feet
Building Height 2 stories / 35 feet 2 stories / 35 feet 1 May be modified in conjunction with the PRD.
Citywide Design Guidelines and Sign Guidelines
Environmental Initial Study 5 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
These adopted guidelines manage development of the physical image of the City’s residential neighborhoods and shopping centers to emphasize “a small-town character within an urban metropolis.” The guidelines provide design objectives in terms of architectural styles relative to the context of the development area and provides specific guidance on scale and mass, landscaping, fences, privacy protection, common open space, and parking. The Project design and landscaping would comply with City’s Design Guidelines, which would be verified through the City’s development review and permitting process.
Thus, the P roject would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. As the P roject would develop the site with single -family housing, which is consistent with the land uses adjacent to the site, the P roject would be visually compatible with the surrounding single -family uses. Hence, the proposed P roject would not degrade the visual character of the Project site and surrounding area. Impacts would be less than significant.
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 FEIR Figure 5.1- 2 – Mount Palomar Lighting Area, Title 19 – Article VIII – Chapter 19.556 – Lighting, and Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines.)
Less than Significant Impact. As shown in the City’s General Plan EIR Figure 5.1-2, Mt. Palomar Nighttime Lighting Policy Area, the site is at the outer edge of the Mount Palomar Lighting Area. Most of the Project site is undeveloped, except for the vacant single-family residence, and no existing sources of lighting or glare emanating from the P roject site. However, the Project site is surrounded by sources of nighttime lighting that includes illumination from street lighting, vehicle headlights, exterior residential lighting, and inte rior illumination passing through windows. Sensitive receptors relative to lighting and glare include residents, motorists, and pedestrians.
The proposed Project would include installation of new lighting sources on the Project site that would include exterior lighting for streetlights and residential security lighting. However, Chapter 19.556 of the Municipal Code establishes design and development standards for outdoor lighting that include height, shielding, and location requirements that ensure new lighting does not impact existing uses in the P roject site. With compliance with the City’s Municipal Code , that would be verified through the City’s permitting process, impacts related to increased sources of light would be less than significant.
Glare can emanate from many different sources, some of which include direct sunlight, sunlight reflecting from cars or buildings, and bright outdoor or indoor lighting. The majority of the exterior of the proposed residential structures would consist of stucco, cement tile, brick, wood, and concrete, which are not reflective surfaces. In addition, the residences would not have large expanses of window areas or large parking lot areas, from which sunlight could be reflected. Additionally, the installation of outdoor lighting would be required to meet the requirements of Chapter 19.556, which would reduce the potential to generate glare from new lighting fixtures to less than significant level.
Environmental Initial Study 6 PR-2021-001053
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 t o use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information complied by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology
provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
2a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 – Figure OS-2 – Agricultural Suitability and California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder Map, April 2021) No Impact. The Project site is not designated as Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Approximately 8.9 acres of the site is identified by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as Farmland of Local Importance. The remainder of the Project site is identified by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as Other Land, which includes land not included in any other mapping category, such as: low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and vacant land surrounded by urban development. Thus, the proposed Project would result in no impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use.
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 FEIR – Figure 5.2-4 – Proposed Zones Permitting Agricultural Uses, City of Riverside Zoning Code, and Title 19) Less than Significant Impact. The site is zoned R-1-13000-SP – Single Family Residential and Specific Plan (Orangecrest) Overlay Zones and OSP-RA-SP – Residential Agricultural and Specific Plan (Orangecrest) Overlay Zones . The Overlay Planning Area 107-B that includes the northern portion of the site provides for development consistent with R-1-8500 Single Family Residential Zone and Overlay Planning Area 107-C (southern portion of the site) provides for development consistent with R -1-13,000 Single Family Residential Zone upon diminishment of the Woodcrest Agricultural Preserve No. 7.
Disestablishment of the Woodcrest Agricultural Preserve No. 7 is being consi dered as part of the project pursuant to the Californial Land Conservation Act of 1965 (The Willidamson Act) in Title 5 of the California Government Code, Section 51200. Therefore, conflicts related to agricultural zoning would result in a less than signif icant impact. In addition, t he Project site is not located within an area that is affected by a Williamson Act contract. Thus, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to conflict with a Williamson Act contract. c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
Environmental Initial Study 7 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
2c. Response: (Source: City of Riverside Zoning Code, GIS Map – Forest Data)
No Impact. The City of Riverside has no forest land that can support 10 -percent native tree cover nor does it have any timberland. The Project site is not zoned for forest land or timberland uses. Thus, the proposed P roject would result in no impacts related to conflict with an existing forest land or timberland zoning..
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
2d. Response: (Source: GIS Map – Forest Data)
No Impact. The City of Riverside has no forest land that can support 10 -percent native tree cover nor does it have any timberland. The Project site does not include forest land. Thus, the proposed Project would result in no impacts related to the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
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, Figure LU-10 – Land Use Policy Map, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix D))
Less Than Significant Impact. As described previously, the P roject site is not used for agricultural activity and does not consist of farmland. Approximately 8.9 acres of the site is identified by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as Farmland of Local Importance, which is identified as land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. However, the site is vacant and has not been used for agriculture since at least 1994, as shown in the historic aerial photographs that are included in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, which is included as Appendix G. As the site has not been used for agriculture for the past 27 years, the site is not land of importance to the local agricultural economy.
The Project site is surrounded by roadways and single-family residential uses. An area used as a tree and plant nursery exists to the east of the site beyond Dant Street and the single-family residential uses on the east side of Dant Street. However, this area is not located adjacent to the site, and development of the Project site would not hinder the continued use of this area for nursery uses. Thus, impacts related to the conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use would be less than significant , and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR . In addition, the City of Riverside has no forest land that can support 10- percent native tree cover. Therefore, no impacts related to forest land would occur.
3. AIR QUALITY.
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
3a. Response: (Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (AQ/GHG 2021) (Appendix A))
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Environmental Initial Study 8 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Governments (SCAG) are responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which addresses federal and state Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the Basin. In preparation of the AQMP, SCAQMD uses City General Plan land use designations to identify growth, which is used to forecast, inventory, and allocate regional emissions from land use and development -related sources. Therefore, if a proposed project would have a development density and vehic le trip generation that is substantially greater than what was anticipated in the General Plan, then the proposed project would conflict with the AQMP. Conversely, if a project’s density is consistent with the General Plan, its emissions would be consisten t with the assumptions in the AQMP, and the project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s attainment plans. In addition, the SCAQMD considers projects consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existi ng air quality violations or cause a new violation.
The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of LDR – Low Density Residential, which allows a maximum of 6.0 dwelling units per acre, and MDR – Medium Density Residential, which allows a maximum of 8.0 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed Project is requesting a PRD permit to develop 96 single-family residences on the 18.925-acre site, which would result in 5.07 single-family dwelling units per gross acre, which would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designations for the P roject site. Therefore, the development density of the proposed Project would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP and would not conflict with SCAQMD’s attainment plans.
In addition, emissions generated by construction and operation of the proposed P roject would not exceed thresholds, as described in the analysis below, which are based on the AQMP and are desi gned to bring the Basin into attainment for the criteria pollutants for which it is in nonattainment. Therefore, because the proposed Project does not exceed any of the thresholds it would not conflict with SCAQMD’s goal of bringing the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants and, as such, is consistent with the AQMP. As a result, impacts related to conflict with the AQMP from the proposed P roject would be less than significant.
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
3b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FEIR Table 5.3-B SCAQMD CEQA Regional Significance Thresholds, South Coast Air Qu ality Management District’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (AQ/GHG 2021) (Appendix A)) Le
ss Than Significant Impact.
R
egional Air Quality Thresholds
The analysis methodologies from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are used in evaluating project impacts.
SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table AQ-1. Should construction or operation of t he Project exceed these thresholds a significant impact could occur; however, if estimated emissions are less than the thresholds, impacts would be considered less than significant.
Ta
ble AQ-1: SCAQMD Regional Air Quality Significance Thresholds Pollutant
Mass Daily Thresholds (lbs/day)
Construction Operations
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 100 55
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 55
Oxides of Sulfur (SOX) 150 150
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Leada 3 3
TACs (including carcinogens and Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk:
Environmental Initial Study 9 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
non-carcinogens ≥ 10 in 1 million Cancer Burden
> 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) C hronic & Acute Hazard Index
≥ 1.0 (project increment)
Source: AQ/GHG 2022, Appendix A.
C
onstruction
Construction activities would generate pollutant emissions from site preparation, grading, and excavation; construction workers traveling to and from the Project site; delivery and hauling of construction supplies to, and debris from, the P roject site; fue l combustion by onsite construction equipment; building construction; application of architectural coatings; and paving. The amount of emissions generated daily would vary, depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring.
It is mandatory for all construction projects to comply with several SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements include, but are not limited to applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes ; applying soil binders to uncovered areas; reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible; utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercar riages before vehicles exit the project site ; covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 12-inches; and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas. In addition, implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1108 governing the ROG content of asphalt and Rules 1113 and 1143 that govern the ROG content in architectural coating, paint, thinners, and solvents are required to be implemented.
As shown in Table AQ -2, the maximum construction emissions generated on a peak construction day by the P roject would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds; and therefore, construction activities would result in a less than significant impact.
Emissions were estimated using the California Emission Estimator Model Version 2022.1 (CalEEMod) defaults, except for adjustments to provide compliance with SCAQMD Rule 445 that does not allow wood burning stoves or fireplace s in new residences.
Table AQ-2: Regional Construction Emission Estimates
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2023
Demolition 2.9 27.5 24.6 0.0 1.3 1.1
Site Prep 4.0 39.8 36.7 0.1 6.9 4.3
Grading 3.9 40.0 33.4 0.1 4.2 2.5
Building Construction 1.6 13.4 17.6 0.0 0.7 0.6
Maximum Daily
Emissions 4.0 40.0 36.7 0.1 6.9 4.3
2024
Building Construction 1.3 12.2 14.2 0.0 0.5 0.5
Paving 0.9 7.8 10.0 0.0 0.4 0.4
Architectural Coating 66.7 1.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Maximum Daily
Emissions 66.7 12.2 14.2 0.0 0.5 0.5
Maximum Daily
Emission 2023-2024 66.7 40.0 36.7 0.1 6.9 4.3
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: AQ/GHG 2022, Appendix A.
O
peration
The Project would result in long-term regional emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as natural gas consumption, landscaping, applications of architectural coatings, and consumer products, in
Environmental Initial Study 10 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
addition to operational mobile emissions. As shown in Table T -1, in the Transportation Section, d evelopment of the Project would generate 906 vehicle trips per day.
Operational emissions associated with the P roject were modeled using CalEEMod. Model defaults were adju sted to reflect project-specific data, where available, including the size and type of the proposed land use and P roject specific trip rates.
Modeled maximum da ily operations emissions are presented in Table AQ -3. As shown, the maximum daily emissions that would occur from operation of the proposed P roject would not exceed SCAQMD’s thresholds for criteria pollutants.
Therefore, the Project’s operational emissions would be less than significant.
Table AQ-3: Regional Operational Emission Estimates
Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 7.5 3.1 27.0 0.1 2.0 0.4
Area 5.0 1.7 6.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
Energy 0.1 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total Project
Operational Emissions
12.5 5.6 33.5 0.1 2.2 0.6
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds
55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: AQ/GHG 2022, Appendix A.
As described previously, the emissions generated from the proposed P roject would not exceed SCAQMD daily thresholds.
Therefore, the Project would not violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and would result in less than significant impacts related to an air quality violation.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
3c. Response: (Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan; and Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (AQ/GHG 2021) (Appendix A)
Less than Significant Impact. The SCAQMD recommends the evaluation of localized NO 2, CO, PM 10, and PM 2.5 construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of a project site. Such an evaluation is referred to as a localized significance analysis. The impacts were analyzed pursuant to the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (SCAQMD 2008). SCAQMD has developed Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) that represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards, and thus would not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts.
LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of NOx, CO, PM 10, and PM2.5 pollutants for each of the 36 source receptor areas (SRAs) in the SCAB. The Project site is located in SRA 23, Riverside.
Construction
The Air Quality , Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis determined that the proposed P roject would disturb a maximum of 3.5 acres per day, and that the closest receptors include residential along the northeast and northwest portion of the Project site, about 50 feet and 5 feet respectively. As shown in Table AQ-4, with implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimize fugitive dust generation during construction activities, the daily construction emissions from the proposed Project would not exceed any thresholds.
Environmental Initial Study 11 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Table AQ-4: Localized Construction Emission Estimates
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
2023
Demolition 27.3 23.5 1.3 1.1
Site Prep 39.7 35.5 6.9 4.3
Grading 37.3 31.4 4.0 2.4
Building Construction 12.8 14.3 0.6 0.6
Maximum Daily Emissions 39.7 35.5 6.9 4.3
2024
Building Construction 15.4 17.3 0.7 0.7
Paving 10.2 14.6 0.5 0.5
Architectural Coating 1.7 2.4 0.1 0.1
Maximum Daily Emissions 15.4 17.3 0.7 0.7
Maximum Daily Emission 2023-2024 38.8 29.0 8.7 5.4
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 220 1,230 10 6
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: AQ/GHG 2022, Appendix A.
Operations
Operation of the proposed residences would not generate any substantial localized pollutant concentrations. According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods of time queuing and idling at the p roject site (e.g., warehouse buildings). The proposed single -family residential P roject does not include such uses, and therefore, would result in a less than significant impact.
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
3d. Response: (Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook)
Less than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor issues include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting activities , refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding operations. The proposed P roject would develop and operate 96 single- family residences, which would not involve the types of activities that would emit objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. In addition, odors generated by land uses are required to be in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 .
SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, states:
A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
Implementation of the proposed residential uses and adherence to Rule 402 wo uld reduce operational odors to a less than significant impact.
During construction, emissions from diesel equipment, use of volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings, and paving activities may generate some nuisance odors. However, these odors would be temporary and would dissipate as odors disperse, and therefore, would not affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts relating to both operational and construction activity odors would be less than significant.
Environmental Initial Study 12 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
4a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 – Figure OS-6 – Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Core Reserve and O ther Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP), Figure OS -7 – MSHCP Cores and Linkages, Figure OS -8 – MSHCP Cell Areas, General Plan 2025 FEIR Figure 5.4- 2 – MSHCP Area Plans, Figure 5.4 -4 - MSHCP Criteria Cells and Subunit Areas, Figure 5.4 -6 – MSHCP Narrow Endemi c Plant Species Survey Area , Figure 5.4 -7 – MSHCP Criteria Area Species Survey Area, Figure 5.4-8 – MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area Potentially Significant Impact. The Project site contains disturbed areas and areas of ruderal vegetation that is dominated by non-native grasses with scattered ornamental trees and shrubs. The site is located within the Lake Mathews/Woodcrest Area Plan of the Western Riverside County MSHCP, but not located within a Criteria Cell or Cell Group. The Project site is not located within any plan -defined areas requiring surveys for narrow endemic plant species, criteria area plant species, amphibian species, or mammalian species. However, the Project site is w ithin the Western Riverside County MSHCP burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) survey area. Therefore, a General Biological Assessment will be prepared, that will incldue a habitat assessment for burrowing owl and appropriate measures pursuant to the Western Riverside County MSHCP, such as burrowing owl preconstruction surveys per the Western Riverside County MSHCP Species Survey Protocols for Burrowing Owls will be required. Therefore, potentially significant impacts have been identified, this topic will be evaluated in the EIR, and appropriate mitigation measures will be included, as necessary. 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 Conser vation Plans (HCP), Figure OS -7 – MSHCP Cores and Linkages, Figure OS -8 – MSHCP Cell Areas, General Plan 2025 FEIR 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 Sur vey 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 No Impact. The Project site contains disturbed areas and areas of ruderal vegetation that is dominated by non- native grasses with scattered ornamental trees and shrubs. The Project site does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, any channels, streambeds, lakes, ponds, or ot her riverine resources. In addition, the Project site does not support riparian habitat, and there are no potential vernal pools or other ponding areas on the P roject site. Soils that may support seasonal ponding are not present .
Thus, suitable habitat for species associated with vernal pools (i.e., fairy shrimp) is not present. N o other sensitive natural communities exist on the Project site. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on these resources or species associated with them.
c. Have a substantia l adverse effect on state or federally- protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
4c. Response: (Source: City of Riverside GIS/CADME USGS Quad Map Layer
Environmental Initial Study 13 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
No Impact. The Project site contains disturbed areas and areas of ruderal vegetation that is dominated by non- native grasses with scattered ornamental trees and shrubs . The Project site does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, any channels, drainages, streambeds, lakes, ponds, riverine or riparian habitat. In addition, there are no potential vernal pools or other ponding are as on the P roject site. Soils that may support season al ponding are not present. Furthermore, the P roject site does not contain any water resources under the regulatory authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CDFW, or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Therefore, there would be no impacts on jurisdictional resources from implementation of the proposed Project.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
4d. Response: (Source: MSHCP, General Plan 2025 –Figure OS-7 – MSHCP Cores and Linkage
Potentially Significant Impact. The Project site is not identified as being located within a designated wildlife corridor or linkage. The Project site consists of flat, disturbed land characterized by disturbed/developed and ruderal areas. Further, the Project site is surrounded by urban development such as residential uses, a construction site for future residential uses, and roadways. Thus, impacts related to wildlife movement corridors would not occur with implementation of the Project.
However, trees on and adjacent to the P roject site have the potential to support birds that are subject to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Bird species and raptors that may occur in the Project site include: Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Raven (Corvus corax), mourning dove ( Zenaida macroura), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), and White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys ), and Cassin’s kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans ). The MBTA prohibits the taking of migratory birds and their nests and eggs. If construction is initiated during the bird nesting s eason, a potentially significant impact related to nesting birds may occur. Therefore, a nesting bird survey would be conducted to assess the Project potential to impact nesting birds and mitigation will be included as necessary.
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, 2025 General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element
Less Than Significant Impact. Any project within the City of Riverside’s boundaries that proposes planting a street tree within a City right- 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 tree care established by the International Society of Arboriculture, the National Arborists Association, and the American National Standards Institute.
The proposed Project includes installation of street trees throughout the Project site and along the street right of ways adjacent to the Project site. The installation of these trees would be in compliance with the Tree Policy Manual. The City’s Planning Division and Public Works Department, Urban Forestry Division would review the landscaping plans through plan checks and inspection of the landscaping during installation, which would ensure that all required City requirements related to the street trees are incorporated, and therefore, impacts would 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
conservation plan?
Environmental Initial Study 14 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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)
Potentially Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the MSHCP Lake Matthews/Woodcrest Area Plan, but not located within a Criteria Cell or Cell Group. The Project site is not located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) and is also not within or adjacent to a Western Riverside County MSHCP Conservation Area. The Project site does not contain any riparian/riverine habitat areas, vernal pools, sensitive plant species, or sensitive wildlife species that are included within the MSHCP.
However, the Project site is located within the MSHCP survey area for burrowing owl. The refore, a General Biological Assessment for this species will be prepared to identify the potential presence of burrowing owl on site and appropriate measures pursuant to the Western Riverside County MSHCP will be required . Therefore, potentially significant impact s have been identified, this topic will be evaluated in the EIR , and appropriate mitigation measures will be included, as necessary.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines?
5a. Response: (Source: Focused Cultural Resources Survey – Historic Resources Assessment (Appendix C)
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the State CEQA Guidelines, a historical resource is defined as something that meets one or more of the following criteria:
1) Listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources; 2) Listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k); 3) Identified as significant in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or 4) Determined to be a historical resource by the project’s Lead Agency.
PRC Section 5024.1 directs evaluation of historical resources to determine their eligibility for listing on the CRHR. The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing on the NRHP, enumerated above, and require similar protection to what NHPA Section 106 mandates for historic properties. According to PRC Section 5024.1(c)(1- 4), a resource is considered historically signific ant if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
1) Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2) Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history; 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or
4) Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.
As described previously, the Project site is currently largely vacant and undeveloped except for a single-family residence that was constructed in 1927 and is located on the southeast corner of the Project site. The Historic Resources Assessment , provided as Appendix C herein, describes that the residence was part of the holdings of a ranching family and was originally part of a larger property that was subdivided into smaller parcels. The residential building is of common design and has been extensively modified by the enclosure of the front porch and inappropriate repair, replacement, or modification of character - defining features, including windows and window openings, main entry, eaves, and wall cladding. The Historic Resources Assessment also describes that the setting has been somewhat compromised by the reduction of the property from subdivision, and that the property is not strongly associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our national or state history or with significant persons in our past; does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type,
Environmental Initial Study 15 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
period, or represent the work of a master or possess high artistic value; and has not yielded, or is likely to yield, further information important in history or prehistory. Alterations have significantly compromised its integrity and redefined its design, the quality of which lacks architectural distinction, and important associations have not been established, precluding eligibility for local designation under any of the criteria in Title 20 of the Riverside Municipal Code. As the property does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or California Register of Historical Resources, or designation at the local level it is not considered a historic resource under CEQA, and demolition of the residential structure would be less than significant, and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
5b. Response: (Source: Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix E ))
Potentially Significant Impact. Although the P roject site has been previously disturbed through past uses on the site, previously recorded prehistoric resources have been identified within proximity of the P roject site. Therefore, it is possible that additional cultural resources could be uncovered during earthmoving activities. A Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment will be prepared to determined if the site has a potential for archaeological resources, and if mitigation measures are required.
Therefore, potentially significant impact s have been identified, this topic will be evaluated in the EIR , and appropriate mitigation measures will be included, as necessary.
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
5c. Response: (Source: GP 2025 FEIR Figure 5.5 -1 - Archaeological Sensitivity and Figure 5.5 -2 - Prehistoric Cultural Resources Sensitivity
Less Than Significant Impact. As described above, the Project site is vacant and undeveloped, with exception of one small residence at the southeast corner of the site and has no history of previous cemetery uses. Human remains on the P roject site are unlikely, as they typically would have been identified during previous agricultural and disking activities. Thus, impacts are less than significant. However, in the unanticipated event that human remains are found during P roject construction activities compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which is implemented by the City as a standard condition of approval, would ensure that human remains were treated with dignity and as specified by law, which would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
As specified by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are found on the Project site, the County Coroner’s office shall be immediately notified and no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the Coroner has m ade the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC would make a determination as to the Most Likely Descendent. Compliance with the existing California Health and Safety Code regulations, would ensure impacts related to potential disturbance of human remains are less than significant .
6. ENERGY
Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
6a. Response: (Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (AQ/GHG 2021) (Appendix A))
Less Than Significant Impact.
Environmental Initial Study 16 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Construction
Construction activities proposed for the P roject would consume energy through the operation of heavy off -road equipment, trucks, and worker traffic, primarily in the form of equipment fuel consumption. Construction is anticipated to last approximately 18 m onths and would occur over 18.925 acres. The P roject proposes development of 96 single -family residences. The following assumptions were used to calculate the energy consumption of the proposed P roject:
• The Project’s construction and operational energy consumption would be provided by the Riverside Public Utilities (RPU). RPU derives electricity from varied sources including natural gas, coal, nuclear, biomass, geothermal, solar, wind, and hydroelectric.
• Construction equipment fuel consumption derived from ARB Offroad2017 emission model • Fuel Consumption from vehicle travel derived from ARB EMFAC2021 emission model • Electrical and natural gas usage derived from the CalEEMod model
Electric power used would be for as -necessary lighting and electronic equipment such as computers inside temporary construction trailers. Natural Gas is not anticipated to be needed for construction activities. The construction equipment associated with con struction activities (off -road/heavy duty vehicles) would rely on diesel fuel as would vendor and haul trucks involved in delivering building materials and removing the demolition debris from the P roject site. Construction workers would travel to and from the Project site throughout the duration of construction, and for a conservative analysis it is assumed that construction workers would travel in gasoline-powered passenger vehicles.
Table E-1: Construction Equipment Fuel Usage, used the total fuel consum ption and horsepower-hour data contained within the ARB OffRoad 2017 emission model for specific types of diesel construction equipment and modeled in CalEEMod . It should be noted that the total fuel consumption is a conservative analysis and would likely overstate the amount of fuel usage, as specific construction equipment is not expected to operate during the duration of the construction activity (i.e. crane). Table E-2: Estimate Project Vehicle Fuel Usage, summarizes the P roject’s construction vehicle fuel usage based on vehicle miles traveled and fuel usage factors contained in the ARB EMFAC2021 and modeled in CalEEMod. The trips included are worker vehicles, vendor vehicles, and haul vehicles. Table E-3: Total Construction Fuel Usage, shows the overall fuel consumption for construction of the proposed Project per CalEEMod.
Table E-1: Construction Equipment Fuel Usage
Activity Equipment Number
Hours
per
day
Horse
-
power
Load
Factor Days
Total
Horsepowe
r-hours
Fuel
Rate
(gal/hp-
hr)
Fuel Use
(gallons)
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial
Saws
1 8 33 0.73 10 1,927 0.041915
88 81
Excavators 3 8 36 0.38 10 3,283 0.019868
44 65
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 367 0.4 10 23,488 0.020615
16 484
Site
Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.4 10 35,232 0.020615
16 726
Tractors/Loaders
/Backhoes
4 8 84 0.37 10 9,946 0.019155
95 191
Grading
Excavators 2 8 36 0.38 30 6,566 0.019868
44 130
Graders 1 8 148 0.41 30 14,563 0.021167
86 308
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 30 35,232 0.020615
16 726
Scrapers 2 8 423 0.48 30 97,459 0.025007
58 2,437
Environmental Initial Study 17 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
2 8 84 0.37 30 14,918 0.019155
95 286
Model
Building
Construction
Cranes
1 8 367 0.29 300 255,432 0.014896
92 3,805
Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2 300 118,080 0.010444
04 1,233
Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 300 24,864 0.057947
44 1,441
Tractors/Loaders
/Backhoes
3 8 84 0.37 300 223,776 0.019155
95 4,287
Welders 1 8 46 0.45 300 49,680 0.028412
02 1,412
Paving
Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 20 10,886 0.021536
9 234
Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 20 10,253 0.018465
41 189
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 20 4,378 0.019837
45 87
Model
Architectural
Coating
Air Compressors
1 8 37 0.48 20 2,842 0.028645
34 81
Total 22,135
Source: AQ/GHG 2022, Appendix A.
Ta
ble E-2: Estimated Project Vehicle Fuel Usage
Construction
Source Number VMT Fuel Rate Gallons of Diesel
Fuel
Gallons of
Gasoline Fuel
Haul Trucks 366 7,320 6.04 1,212 0
Vender Truck 10 30,600 8.93 3,428 0
Worker Vehicles 95 216,820 25.33 0 8,184
Total 4,640 8,184
*Haul trip number shows total trips, while vendor and worker trip numbers show daily trips Source: AQ/GHG 2022, Appendix A.
Ta
ble E-3: Total Construction Fuel Usage
Construction Source Gallons of Diesel Fuel Gallons of Gasoline Fuel Construction Vehicles 4,640 1,064
Off-road Construction Equipment 17,573 0
Total 22,213 1,064
Source: AQ/GHG 2022, Appendix A.
Proposed construction activities for the P oject would result in an estimated total of 22,213 gallons of diesel fuel and 1,064 gallons of gasoline fuel. Fuel consumption for proposed construction would be temporary and localized. Proposed construction has no unusual characteristics that would make the construction fuel and energy consumption associated with construction of the P roject less efficient compared with other similar construction sites throughout the state. In addition, construction equipment fleet turnover and increasingly stringent state and federal regulations on engine efficiency combined with local, state and federal regulations limiting engine idling times and requiring recycling of construction debris would further reduce the amount of transportation fuel demand during the P roject’s construction. Therefore, Project construction would result in a less than significant impact.
Operation
Environmental Initial Study 18 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
The operation of the proposed Project would consume electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. The net energy consumption can be found in Table E-4: Project Annual Operational Energy Requirements, below. The gasoline consumption rates utilize the same assumptions that were used for the worker vehicles and were determined through CalEEMod modeling.
Table E-4: Project Annual Operational Energy Requirements Energy Source Energy Usage
Electricity 896,567 Kilowatt-Hours
Natural Gas 2,937,230 Thousands British Thermal Units
Annual VMT 3,414,174 VMT
Gallons of Gasoline Fuel 93,741 Gallons
Source: AQ/GHG 2021, Appendix A.
Operation of the 96 single family residential units would result in an estimated consumption of 896,567 Kilowatt-Hours, 3,414,174 British Thermal Units and 93,741 gallons of gasoline. The P roject would comply with all the energy efficiency requirements under Title 24 of the California Green Building Standards Code and applicable C ity energy requirements.
Consistent with the 2019 C A Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24 Part 6), the Project would include photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on the rooftops of each of the residences. The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction standards through Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by the City that the P roject shall comply with the adopted California Energy Code (Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 6). The City’s administration of the Title 24 requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures that occurs during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. Typical Title 24 measures includ e insulation; use of energy- efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment (HVAC); energy- efficient indoor and outdoor lighting systems; reclamation of heat rejection from refrigeration equipment to generate hot water; and incorporation of skylights, etc. In complying with the Title 24 standards, impacts to peak energy usage periods would be minimized, and impacts on statewide and regional energy needs would be reduced. The California Energy Commission estimates that single -family homes buil t in compliance with the 2019 energy efficiency standards uses about 7 percent less energy due to energy-efficiency measures versus those built under the 2016 code.
With use of rooftop solar electricity generation, homes built under the 2019 code use about 53 percent less energy than those under the 2016 standards (2019 Fact Sheet). Thus, operation of the P roject would not use large amounts of energy or fuel in a wasteful manner. Proposed operation has no unusual characteristics that would make the fuel and energy consumption associated with operation of the Project less efficient compared with other similar construction sites throughout the state.
Therefore, Project operation would result in a less than significant impact .
Environmental Initial Study 19 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
6b. Response: (Source: City of Riverside, California, Five Year Integrated Resource Plan 2018, the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (AQ/GHG 2021) (Appendix A))
No Impact. As described in the previous response, t he proposed Project would be required to meet the Title 24 energy efficiency standards in effect during permitting of the Project. The City’s administration of the requirements includes review of design components and energy conservation measures during the permitting process, which ensures that all requirements are met. In addition, the P roject would not conflict with or obstruct opportunities to use renewable energy, such as solar energy. The Project proposes to use photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on each of the residences to offset their energy demand in accordance with the existing Title 24 requirements. As such, the P roject would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would not occur.
In addition, the City of Riverside has a Five -Year Integrated Resource Plan (2018), which includes renewable energy and energy efficiency plans and programs. The P roject would not obstruct the a bility of the City to continue to contract with renewable energy purchase agreements pursuant to this plan or their recent planned portfolio. Compliance with the Integrated Resource Plan regulations will ensure that impacts related to renewable energy and energy efficiency would have no impact.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
7i. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS -1 – Regional Fault Zones , General Plan 2025 FEIR Appendix E – Geotechnical Report, Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix E))
No Impact. The Project site is not located within a designated Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. As described by the Geotechnical Evaluation for the proposed Project, there are no known active faults in the vicinity of the site (Leighton 2021).
Thus, the proposed Pproject would not expo se people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from rupture of a known earthquake fault that is delineated on an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, therefore, no impacts would not occur.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
7ii. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FEIR Appendix E – Geotechnical Report, Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix E))
Less than Significant Impact . The site is located within a seismically active region of southern California. The principal seismic hazard that could affect the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along several major active or potentially active faults in southern California. The known regional active and potentially active faults that could produce the most significant ground shaking within the City include the Chino- Central Avenue, Elsinore -Glen Ivy, Whittier, San Bernardino and San Jacinto Valley sections of the San Jacinto fault zone, the Cucamonga, and t he San Jose faults.
The amount of motion expected at a building site can vary from none to forceful depending upon the distance to the fault, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the local geology. Greater movement can be expected at sites located closer to an earthquake epicenter, that consist of poorly consolidated material such as alluvium, and in response to an earthquake of great magnitude.
Environmental Initial Study 20 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Structures built in the City are required to be built in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC [C alifornia Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2]) that contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soils onsite, and the probable strength of ground motion. Compliance with the CBC would include the incorporation of: 1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; 2) proper building footings and foundations; and 3) construction of the building structure so that it would withstand the effect s of strong ground shaking. Because the proposed P roject would be constructed in compliance with the CBC, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to strong seismic ground shaking.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 7iii. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 F igure PS -1 – Regional Fault Zones, Figure PS -2 – Liquefaction Zones, General Plan 2025 FEIR Figure PS -3 – Soils with High Shrink -Swell Potential, Appendix E – Geotechnical Report, Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix E))
Less than Significant Impact . Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength or stiffness due to a buildup of pore -water pressure during severe ground shaking. Liquefaction is associated primarily with loose (low density), saturated, fine -to-medium grained, cohesionless soils. As the shakin g action of an earthquake progresses, the soil grains are rearranged and the soils temporarily behave similarly to a fluid. Effects of liquefaction can include sand boils, settlement, and bearing capacity failures below structural foundations. For liquefac tion effects to occur, groundwater levels must be within 50 feet of the ground surface and soils in the saturated zone must be non-consolidated loose soils that are susceptible to liquefaction.
The Project site is not located in an area that has been iden tified as having a potential for liquefaction on the General Plan 2025 Liquefaction Zones Map – Figure PS- 2. The Geotechnical Evaluation states that groundwater was encountered in granitic bedrock at depths of 18 and 20 feet below the existing grade . However, due to the existing bedrock, impacts related to liquefaction are low. In addition, the P roject includes removal and re -compaction of the near surface soils to a 90 percent compaction in compliance with the CBC, which would further reduce the potential for liquefaction or dynamic settlement due to the design earthquake event to affect structures at this site is very low (Leighton 202 1).
As the Project is required to be built in compliance with the CBC, which includes provisions to reduce the potential effects of liquefaction, such as proper buildings and footings. With implementation of the required CBC seismic safety measures, including those re lated to liquefaction, the proposed P roject would result in a less than significant impact related to liquefaction.
iv. Landslides?
7iv. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FEIR Figure 5.6-1 – Areas Underlain by Steep Slope, Appendix E – Geotechnical Report, Title 18 – Subdivision Code, Title 17 – Grading Code , Geotechnical Evalua tion (Appendix E))
No Impact. Landslides are the downhill movement of masses of earth and rock and are often associated with earthquakes; but other factors, such as the slope, moisture content of the soil, composition of the subsurface geology, heavy rains, and improper grading can influence the occurrence of landslides.
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 EIR. Also, as described in the Geotechnical Evaluation, no evidence of on-site landslides/debris flow or rock fall exists on site and the thick deposits of surficial soils typically associated with landsliding or debris flows are not present. Due to the lack of nearby rock outcrop and the gentle natural slope of adjacent hillside areas, the Geotechnical Evaluation determined that debris flow and rock fall hazards are considered very low .
Therefore, the Project would result in no impacts.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Environmental Initial Study 21 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
7b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FEIR 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, Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix C))
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the Project has the potential to contribute to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Grading and excavation activities that would be required for the proposed P roject would expose and loosen topsoil, which could be eroded by wind or water.
The City’s Municipa l Code Titles 17 (Grading) and 18 (Subdivisions), Storm Water/Urban Runoff implement the requirements of the California RWQCB Order No. R8- 2010-0033, NPDES Permit No. CAS618033 for the portion of the Santa Ana River watershed located within Riverside County, which includes the City. All projects in the City are required to conform to the permit requirements, which include installation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance with the RWQCB permit, which establishes minimum stormwater management req uirements and controls that are required to be implemented for the proposed Project. To reduce the potential for soil erosion and the loss of topsoil, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required by the RWQCB regulations to be developed by a QSD (Qualified SWPPP Developer).
The SWPPP is required to address site-
specific conditions related to specific grading and construction activities. The SWPPP would identify potential sources of erosion and sedimentation to prevent loss of topsoil during construction, and to identify erosion control BMPs to reduce or eliminate the erosion and loss of topsoil, such as use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gra vel bags; stabilized construction entrances/exits; hydroseeding, and similar measures. With compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, RWQCB requirements, and the BMPs in the SWPPP that is required to be prepared to implement the project, construction impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
Construction of the proposed Project includes installation of landscaping, such that during operation of the Project substantial areas of loose topsoil that could erode would not exist. In addition, as described in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the onsite drainage feature s that would be installed by the P roject includes bioretention facilities that have been designed to slow, filter, and slowly discharge stormwater into the proposed drainage system, which would also reduce the potential for stormwater to erode topsoil duri ng Project operations. Furthermore, implementation of the P roject requires City approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), w hich would ensure that the City’s Municipal Code, RWQCB requirements, and appropriate operational BMPs would be implemented and maintained to minimize or eliminate the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil to occur. As a result, potential impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
7c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS -1 – Regional Fault Zones, Figure PS -2 – Liquefaction Zones, General Plan 2025 FEIR Figure PS-3 – Soils with High Shrink-Swell Potential, Figure 5.6-1 - Areas Underlain by Steep Slope, Figure 5.6-4 – Soils, Table 5.6-B – Soil Types, Appendix E – Geotechnical Report, and Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix E))
Less Than Significant Impact. As described previously in Response 7 .iv, the P roject site is relatively flat, and no onsite landslides would occur. In addition, the pr operties surrounding the P roject site do not contain substantial slopes and would not be subject to a potential landslide. Additionally, the Geotechnical Evaluation that was prepared for the site determined that slope instability and landslides hazards on the site are very low (Leighton 2021). As a result, impacts related to landslides would not occur from implementation of the proposed Project.
Also, as described above, the potential for surface manifestations of liquefaction and damage because of liquefa ction is very low with removal and re -compaction of the near surface soils to a 90 percent compaction in compliance with the CBC (Leighton 202 1). For these same reasons, the potential for lateral spreading is also very low. Thus, impacts related to liquefaction and lateral spreading would be less than significant.
Environmental Initial Study 22 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Seismically induced settlement or collapse consists of dry dynamic settlement (above groundwater) and liquefaction-induced settlement (below groundwater). During a strong seismic event, seismically induced settlement or collapse can occur within loose to moderately dense sandy soil because of the reduction in volume during, and shortly after, an earthquake event.
Settlement caused by ground shaking is often non-uniformly distributed, which can result in differential settlement.
T
he Geotechnical Evaluation describes that the near surface soils are potentially compressible in their present state and may settle under the surcharge of fills or foundation loading of potential settlement, but that and with removal and re -compaction of the upper 2- 4 feet of alluvial soils in compliance with the CBC, the potential for dynamic settlement or collapse of soils due an earthquake event to affect structures at this site is very low (Leighton 2021).
Subsidence occurs as in -place soil is moisture -conditioned and den sified to receive fill, such as in processing an overexcavation bottom. Subsidence is in addition to shrinkage due to recompaction of fill soil. However, with implementation of near surface soils removal and recompaction to 90 percent, and development of f ootings and foundations in compliance with the CBC regulations, potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Overall, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of CBC requirements that are verified during City permit processing. d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
7d. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 FEIR 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, California Building Code as adopted by the City of Riverside and set out in Title 16 of the Riverside Municipal Code , Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix E))
Less Than Significant Impact . Expansive soils contain significant amounts of clay particles that swell considerably when wetted and shrink when dried. Structures constructed on these soils are subjected to large uplifting forces caused by the swelling. Without proper measures taken, heaving and cracking of both building foundations and slabs-on-grade could result.
According to the Geotechnical Evaluation completed for the Project, testing indicated that near surface soils generally possess a very low to low expansion potential. Additionally, the General Plan 2025 FEIR indicated that the Project site is not located in an area with high shrink swell potential. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant . e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposa l systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
7e. Response:
N
o Impact. The proposed Project would install an onsite sewer system that would connect to the existing sewers in the surrounding roadways and would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As a result, there would ne no impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems from implementation of the proposed P roject. f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
7f. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Policy HP-1.3) Less Than Significant Impact . Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. These resources are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. There are two types of resources: vertebrate and invertebrate paleontological resources. These resources are found in geologic strata conducive to their preservation, typically sedimentary formations. Paleontological sites Environmental Initial Study 23 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
are those areas that show evidence of pre-human activity. Often, they are simply small outcroppings visible on the surface or sites encountered during grading.
The Project site is mapped as lying within the Val Verde tonalite (Kvt). This rock unit, due to its formation deep underground from a magmatic source, is not fossiliferous and has a low paleontological sensitivity. The Phase I Paleontological Resource Assessment describes that the site is overlain by sediments that have been extensively disturbed by agricultural earthmoving and are unlikely to contain any in-situ fossils.
In addition, the Phase I Paleontological Resource Assessment included a fossil local ity records search of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, which stated that no significant fossils have been found within Project site or in similar sediment mapped units as the geologic unit is not suitable to preserve fossils. Further, the Project site is mapped by Riverside County Land Information System as having a Low Potential to contain significant paleontological resources. The Project would be implemented in consistency with state and City policies . In accordance with S tate law, the proposed Project would be required to comply with Section 5097.5 of the California PRC and C alifornia Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 4307, which states that n o person shall remove, injure, deface, or destroy and object of paleotol ogical, archaological, or historical interest or value. Penal Code Section 622.5 establishes as a misdemenor the willful injury , disfiguration, defacement, or destruction of any object or thing of paleoptlical interest or value, whether situated on private or public land s. Finally, Section
17.28.010(h)(3) of the City Municipal Code enables the City to required the project applicant to make reas onable effort to preserve or mitigate impacts to any affected significant or unique paleotological resource. Pursuant to Section 17.28010(h)(3) of the City Municipal Code, the City’s Community and Economic Development Department may inspect construction activities on site for compliance with project conditions of approval, including protection of paleotological resource s. The Project site has Low Potential to contain significant paleontological resources. Through implementation of local and State policies, potential to directly or indirectly destroy a paleotological resource or site or unique geological feature would be further reduced.
The Project would result in less than significant impacts on paleotologiacal resources, and this topic will not be carried forward in the EIR.
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
8a. Response: (Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (AQ/GHG 2021) (Appendix A)) L
ess than Significant Impact.
G
reenhouse Gas Thresholds
The analysis methodologies from SCAQMD are used in evaluating potential impacts related to GHG from implementation of the proposed P roject. SCAQMD does not have approved thresholds; however, the agency does have draft thresholds that provide a tiered approach to evaluate GHG impacts, which include:
• Tier 1: determine whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA ; • Tier 2: determine whether the project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan, which would mean that it does not have significant greenhouse gas emissions; and • Tier 3: determine if the project would be below screening values; if a project’s GHG emissions are under one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant:
o All land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
o Residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year
o Commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e per year
o Mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
In addition, SCAQMD methodology for determining GHG emissions from a project’s construction is to average those
Environmental Initial Study 24 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
emissions over a 30-year span and then to add them to the project’s operational emissions to determine if the project would exceed the screening values listed above. To determine whether the project is significant, the City of Riverside uses the conservative SCAQMD Tier 3 threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land use types.
Construction
The Project construction activities would be temporary but could contribute to greenhouse gas impacts. Construction activities would result in the emission of GHGs f rom equipment exhaust, construction- related vehicular activity and construction worker automobile trips. The total estimated construction-related GHG emissions for construction of the proposed residences are shown in Table GHG- 1. As shown, the estimated GH G emissions during construction would equal approximately 619 MTCO2e, which is equal to approximately 30 MTCO2e per year after amortization over 30 years. Per SCAQMD methodology the 30 year amoritized construction emissions are added to annual operational emissions and compared to the threshold.
Table GHG-1. Construction-Related GHG Emissions
Activity
Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2023 498
2024 121
Total Emissions 619
Total Emissions
Amortized Over 30 Years 21
Source: AQ/GHG 2022, Appendix A.
Operational
Implementation of the proposed single -family residences would result in area and indirect sources of operational GHG emissions that would primarily result from motor vehicle trips, electricity and natural gas consumption, water transport (the energy used t o pump water), and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from electricity consumed by the proposed residences would be generated off -site by fuel combustion at the electricity provider. GHG emissions from water transport are also indirect emissions resulti ng from the energy required to transport water from its source. The estimated operational GHG emissions that would be generated from implementation of the proposed single -family residential project are shown in Table GHG-2. Additionally, in accordance with SCAQMD’s recommendation, the Project’s amortized construction-related GHG emissions from Table GHG- 1 are added to the operational emissions estimate in order to determine the P roject’s total annual GHG emissions.
As shown in Table GHG-2, the proposed Project’s total net annual GHG emissions would be approximately 1,549 MTCO2e per year. This would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MTCO 2e per year. Therefore, the net increase in GHG emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Table GHG-2. Construction and Operations-Related GHG Emissions Activity
Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Project Operational Emissions
Mobile 955
Area 25
Energy 502
Water 58
Waste 9
Refrigeration 0
Environmental Initial Study 25 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Project Construction Emissions 21
Total Emissions 1,549
Significance Threshold 3,000
Threshold Exceeded? No
Source: AQ/GHG 2022, Appendix A.
b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
8b. Response: (Source: City of Riverside Economic Prosperity Action Plan and Climate Action Plan, January 2016)
Less than Significant Impact. The City has also adopted the California Building Code (Title 24), which includes the CalGreen requirements that require new development to reduce water and energy consumption and reduce solid waste. The proposed single -family residential units would comp ly with these regulations through installation of solar panels, high- efficacy lighting, plumbing, and appliances as required in Title 24 of the California Building Code, as well as installation of landscaping designed to minimize irrigation and runoff. The Project site is served by bus transit services and the Project would include sidewalks and pedestrian street crossings for all of the onsite roadways, which would encourage non-motorized travel, which reduces GHG emissions.
City of Riverside Restorative Growthprint Climate Action Plan. The City of Riverside Restorative Growthprint -Climate Action Plan (RRG CAP) builds on the WRCOG Subregional CAP commitments and provides the City GHG reduction goals for 2020 and 2035. Through the WRCOG Subregional CAP proc ess, the City has adopted a 2020 community- wide GHG emissions target of 2,224,908 MT CO2E, which represents a 15 percent reduction from the City’s 2010 GHG emissions baseline inventory, and a 2035 emissions target of 1,532,274 MT CO2E, 49 percent below the 2007 baseline. These reduction targets are consistent with the statewide AB 32 goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels and fulfill the requirements of SB 375. The RRG CAP includes measures t o reduce GHG emissions. The proposed Project is consistent with the RRG CAP measures are detailed in Table GHG-3.
Table GHG-3: Project Consistency with Riverside Restorative Growthprint Climate Action Plan Measure Description Project Consistency
State and Regulatory Measures
SR-1
Renewable Portfolio Standards
Utilities must secure 33% of their
power from renewable sources by
2020.
Not Applicable. Establishes the
minimum statewide renewable energy
mix for utilities and is not related to
specific developments.
SR-12
2013 California Building Energy
Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6)
Mandatory energy efficiency
standards for buildings.
Consistent. The Project w ould be
required through City permitting to be
consistent with current Title 24
requirements.
SR-3
HERO Residential Program
Financing for homeowners to make
energy efficient, renewable energy,
and water conservation
improvements.
Not Applicable. This is a homeowner
program that is not for developers.
SR-4
HERO Commercial Program
Financing for business owners to make
energy efficient, renewable
energy, and water conservation
improvements.
Not Applicable. This objective is for
improvements to existing commercial
/ business areas and not related to
residential development.
SR-6
Pavley & Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Requirements for vehicles to use
cleaner fuels.
Not Applicable. This objective is
related to car manufacturers and
gasoline refineries and not related to
residential development.
SR-7 Additional Metrolink transit service Not Applicable. The Project is a
Environmental Initial Study 26 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Metrolink Expansions provided to Western Riverside
County.
single-family residential development
and is not related to changes in transit
services.
SR-8
Express Lanes
Additional express lanes added along
major freeways in Western Riverside
County.
Not Applicable. The Project is a
single-family residential development
and is not related to changes in
freeways.
SR-9
Congestion Pricing
Expansion of the toll lanes along the
State Route 91 (SR-91).
Not Applicable. The Project is a
single-family residential development
and is not related to changes in toll
roads.
SR-10
Telecommuting
Work arrangement in which
employees do not commute to a central
place of work.
Not Applicable. The Project is a
single-family residential development
and is not related to employment
locations.
SR-11
Goods Movement
Efficient movement of goods through
inland Southern California.
Not Applicable. The Project is a
single-family residential development
and is not related to movement of
goods.
SR-12
Electric Vehicle Plan and
Infrastructure
Facilitate electric vehicle use by
providing necessary infrastructure.
Consistent. The Project would include
pre-wired electric vehicle charging
spaces, as required by CALGreen
Code.
SR-13
Construction and Demolition
Waste Diversion
Meet mandatory requirement to divert
65 percent of construction solid waste
and 75 percent of operational solid
waste from landfills.
Consistent. The Project would divert
65 percent of construction solid waste
and 75 percent of operational solid
waste from landfills.
Local Reduction Measures
E-1
Traffic and Street Lights
Replace traffic and streetlights with
high-efficiency bulbs
Consistent. The Project would install
new onsite lighting (including street
lights) that would
comply with
applicable energy efficiency
requirements of the California Green
Building Standards Code (Title 24,
California Code of Regulations).
E-2
Shade Trees
Strategically plant trees at new
residential developments to reduce the
urban heat island effect.
Consistent. The Project landscaping
includes trees along roadways,
landscape setbacks, and common open
space areas.
E-3
Local Utility Programs - Electricity
Financing and incentives for business
and homeowners to make energy
efficient, renewable energy, and water
conservation improvements.
Consistent. The Project would comply
with applicable energy efficiency
requirements of the California Green
Building Standards Code (Title 24,
California Code of Regulations)
including use of renewable (solar)
energy and water efficient irrigation
and fixtures.
E-4
Renewable Energy Production
on Public Property
Large scale renewable energy
installation on publicly -owned
property and in public rights of way.
Consistent. This measure is related to
large-scale renewable energy on public
property. The Project is a single-family
development on private property; and
the measure is not applicable.
However, the Project does include
Environmental Initial Study 27 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
installation of renewable energy
infrastructure, as solar panels would be
installed on each residence.
E5
University of California, Riverside
(UCR) Carbon Neutral Program
Collaborate with UCR to achieve a
carbon neutral campus.
Not Applicable. This objective is
related to carbon emissions University
of California, Riverside, not single -
family development on private
property.
T-1
Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements
Expand on-street and off-street bicycle
infrastructure, including bicycle lanes
and bicycle trails.
Consistent. There are no existing
bicycle lanes or pedestrian facilities
adjacent to the Project site. The Project
includes 5- foot-
wide concrete
sidewalks and pedestrian street
crossings throughout the Project site to
provide for safe pedestrian circulation.
In addition, a 35 - setback would be
located along Wood Road that would
include a 10- foot-wide multi- purpose
trail that would provide for bicycle
circulation.
T-2
Bicycle Parking
Provide additional options for bicycle
parking.
Not Applicable. This measure is
related to commercial or employment
land uses. The Project consists of
single-family residences that would
each include a 2-car garage that would
provide for bicycle parking and
storage.
T-3
End of Trip Facilities
Encourage use of non -motorized
transportation modes by providing
appropriate facilities and amenities for
commuters.
Consistent. The Project includes 5 -
foot-wide concrete sidewalks and
pedestrian street crossings throughout
the Project site to provide for safe
pedestrian circulation. In addition, a
35-foot setback would be located
along Wood Road that would include a
10-foot-wide multi- purpose trail that
would provide for bicycle ci rculation.
Thus, the project provides for non-
motorized transportation modes
T-4
Promotional Transportation
Demand Management
Encourage Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) strategies.
Not Applicable. This measure is
related to large employment centers
with 100 or more employees. The
Project is a single -family residential
development. As such, this measure is
not applicable to the Project.
T-5
Traffic Signal Coordination
Incorporate technology to synchronize
and coordinate traf fic signals along
local arterials.
Not Applicable. This measure is
related to government agencies
coordination of traffic signalization ,
and not related to sin gle-family
development.
T-6
Density
Improve jobs -housing balance and
reduce vehicle miles traveled by
increasing household and employment
densities.
Consistent. The Project is consistent
with this measure by providing new
housing on land
designated for
residential uses, which increases
Environmental Initial Study 28 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
residential density within the City.
T-7
Mixed-Used Development
Provide a variety of development types
in mixed use developments.
Not Applicable. The Project is a
single-family residential development
and is not related to mixed- use
developments.
T-8
Pedestrian Only Areas
Encourage walking by providing
pedestrian only community areas.
Consistent. The proposed onsite street
system would include 5- foot-wide
concrete sidewalks and pedestrian
street crossings to provide for safe
pedestrian circulation, and 5-foot-wide
parkways located between the
sidewalks and the residential parcels
throughout the Project site and would
connect to existing sidewalks adjcnet
to the site.
T-9
Limited Parking T-7
Mixed-Used Development
Reduce requirements for vehicle
parking in new mixed-use
development projects.
Not Applicable. The Project is a
single-family residential development
and is not related to mixed- use
developments.
T-10
Bus Rapid Transit Services
Implement bus rapid transit service in
the subregion to provide alternative
transportation options.
Not Applicable. The Project is a
single-family residential development
and is not related to implementation of
rapid transit service.
T-11
Voluntary Transportation
Demand Management
Encourage employers to create TDM
programs for their employees.
Not Applicable. The Project is a
single-family residential development
and is not related to employment.
T-12
Accelerated Bike Plan
Implementation
Accelerate the implementation of all or
specified components of a
jurisdiction’s adopted bike plan.
Consistent. There are no existing
bicycle lanes or pedestrian facilities
adjacent to the Project site. The Project
includes a 10-foot-wide multi-purpose
trail that would provide for bicycle
circulation on the site.
T-13
Fixed Guideway Transit
By 2020, complete feasibility study
and by 2025 introduce a fixed- route
transit service in the jurisdiction.
Not Applicable. The Project is a
single-family residential development
and is not related to fixed-route transit
service.
T-14
Neighborhood Electric Vehicle
Programs
Implement development requirements
to accommodate Neighborhood
Electric Vehicles and supporting
infrastructure.
Consistent. The Project would include
pre-wired electric vehicle charging
spaces, as required by CALGreen
Code.
T-15
Subsidized Transit
Increase access to transit by providing
free or reduced passes.
Not Applicable. The Project is a
single-family residential development
and is not related to provision of transit
service.
T-16
Bike Share Program
Create nodes offering bike sharing at
key locations throughout the City.
Not Applicable. The Project is a
single-family residential development
and is not related to bike sharing
services.
T-17
Car Share Program
Offer Riverside residents the
opportunity to use car sharing to
satisfy short-term mobility needs.
Not Applicable. The Project is a
single-family residential development
and is not related to car sharing
services.
T-18 Use SB 743 to incentivize Consistent. The Project provide
Environmental Initial Study 29 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
SB 743 as Alternative to LOS development in the downtown and other areas served by transit.
development within an area that is
served by transit . Riverside Transit
Authority Bus Route 22 is located
along Wood Road, with stops adjacent
to the Project site. Route 22 provides
services between the Perris Station
Transit Center, which is a Metrolink
stop to the southeast of the site and
downtown Riverside, which is to the
northwest of the site. Route 22
provides service 7 days per week,
between 5:46 am and 8:18 pm. The
existing bus services would allow
Project site residents to convenient
access to transit.
W-1
Water Conservation and Efficiency
Reduce per capita water use by 20% by
2020.
Consistent. The proposed Project
would be required to be consistent with
applicable water efficiency
requirements of the Green Building
Standards Code (Title 24, California
Code of Regulations). T he Project
would be equipped with low -flow
plumbing fixtures that reduce water
use.
SW-1
Yard Waste Collection
Provide green waste collection bins
community-wide.
Consistent. The Project would comply
with applicable solid waste
requirements
SW-2
Food Scrap and Paper Diversion
Divert food and paper waste from
landfills by implementing commercial
and residential collection programs.
Consistent. The Project would be
required to participate in applicable
waste diversion programs. The Project
would also be subject to all applicable
State and City requirements for solid
waste reduction.
CARB Scoping Plan. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions levels. The CARB Scoping Plan also reflects the 2030 target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. The proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable measures established in the Scoping Plan, as shown in Table GHG -4. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with existing plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas.
Table GHG-4: Project Consistency with CARB Scoping Plan Action Responsible Parties Consistency
Implement SB 350 by 2030
Increase the Renewables Portfolio Standard to
50% of retail sales by 2030 and ensure grid
reliability.
CPUC,
CEC,
CARB
Consistent. The Project area uses energy from
Riverside Public Utilities who has committed
to diversify its portfolio of energy sources by
increasing energy from wind and solar sources.
The Project would not interfere with or obstruct
energy source diversification efforts.
Environmental Initial Study 30 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Establish annual targets for statewide energy
efficiency savings and demand reduction that
will achieve a cumulative doubling of
statewide energy efficiency savings in
electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030.
Consistent. The new development
implemented by the Project would be designed
and constructed to imp lement the energy
efficiency measures. The P roject would not
interfere with or obstruct policies or strategies
to establish annual targets for statewide energy
efficiency savings and demand reduction.
Reduce GHG emissions in the electricity
sector through the implementation of the
above measures and other actions as modeled
in Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) to meet
GHG emissions reductions planning targets in
the IRP process. Load -serving entities and
publicly- owned utilities meet GHG emissions
reductions planning targets through a
combination of measures as described in
IRPs.
Consistent. The new development would be
designed and constructed to implement the
Title 24 (CalGreen) Standards.
Implement Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels)
At least 1.5 million zero emission and plug-
in hybrid light-duty EV by 2025.
CARB,
California State
Transportation
Agency (CalSTA),
Strategic Growth
Council (SGC),
California Department
of Transportation
(Caltrans),
CEC,
OPR,
Local Agencies
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The P roject would not obstruct or
interfere with CARB zero emission and plug-in
hybrid light-duty EV 2025 targets.
At least 4.2 million zero emission and plug-in
hybrid light-duty EV by 2030.
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The P roject would not obstruct or
interfere with CARB zero emission and plug-in
hybrid light-duty EV 2030 targets.
Further increase GHG stringency on all light -
duty vehicles beyond existing Advanc ed
Clean cars regulations.
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The P roject would not obstruct or
interfere with CARB efforts to further increase
GHG stringency on all light -
duty vehicles
beyond existing Advanced Clean cars
regulations.
Medium- and Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2.
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The P roject would not obstruct or
interfere with CARB efforts to implement
Medium- and Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2.
Innovative Clean Transit: Transition to a suite
of to-be-determined innovative clean transit
options. Assumed 20% of new urban buses
purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero
emission buses with the penetration of zero-
emission technology ramped up to 100% of
new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas
buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses,
starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy-duty
low-NOX standard.
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The P roject would not obstruct or
interfere with CARB efforts improve transit-
source emissions.
Environmental Initial Study 31 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that
would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner
engines and the deployment of increasing
numbers of zero-emission trucks primarily for
class 3 -7 last mile delivery trucks in
California. This measure assumes ZEVs
comprise 2.5% of new Class 3 –7 truck sales
in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to
10% in 2025 and remaining flat through 2030.
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The P roject would not obstruct or
interfere with CARB efforts to improve last
mile delivery emissions.
Further reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
through continued implementation of SB 375
and regional Sustainable Communities
Strategies; forthcoming statewide
implementation of SB 743; and potential
additional VMT reduction strategies not
specified in the Mobile Source Strategy but
included in the document “Potential VMT
Reduction Strategies for Discussion.”
Consistent. The Project would not obstruct or
interfere with implementation of SB 375 and
would therefore, not conflict with this measure.
Increase stringency of SB 375 Sustainable
Communities Strategy (2035 targets).
CARB
Consistent. This is a CARB Mobile Source
Strategy. The project would not obstruct or
interfere with CARB efforts to Increase
stringency of SB 375 Sustainable Communities
Strategy (2035 targets).
Harmonize project performance with
emissions reductions and increase
competitiveness of transit and active
transportation modes (e.g. via guideline
documents, funding programs, project
selection, etc.).
CalSTA,
SGC,
OPR,
CARB,
Governor’s Office of
Business and
Economic
Development (GO-
Biz),
California
Infrastructure and
Economic
Development Bank
(IBank),
Department of
Finance (DOF),
California
Transportation
Commission (CTC),
Caltrans
Consistent. The Project would not obstruct or
interfere with agency efforts to h armonize
transportation facility project performance with
emissions reductions and increase
competitiveness of transit and active
transportation modes.
By 2019, develop pricing policies to support
low-GHG transportation (e.g. low -emission
vehicle zones for heavy duty, road user,
parking pricing, transit discounts).
CalSTA,
Caltrans,
CTC,
OPR,
SGC,
CARB
Consistent. The Project would not obstruct or
interfere with agency efforts to develop pricing
policies to support low-GHG transportation.
Environmental Initial Study 32 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Implement California Sustainable Freight Action Plan
Improve freight system efficiency.
CalSTA,
CalEPA,
CNRA,
CARB,
Caltrans,
CEC,
GO-Biz
Consistent. This measure would apply to all
trucks accessing the project area, this may
include existing trucks or new trucks that are
part of the statewide goods movement sector.
The project would not obstruct or interfere with
agency efforts to Improve freight system
efficiency.
Deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and
equipment capable of zero emission operation
and maximize both zero and near -zero
emission freight vehicles and equipment
powered by renewable energy by 2030.
Consistent. The Project would not obstruct or
interfere with agency efforts to deploy over
100,000 freight vehicles and equipment
capable of zero emission operation and
maximize both zero and near -zero emission
freight vehicles and equipment powered by
renewable energy by 2030.
Adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard with a
Carbon Intensity reduction of 18%.
CARB
Consistent. The Project would not obstruct or
interfere with agency efforts to adopt a Low
Carbon Fuel Standard with a Carbon Intensity
reduction of 18%.
Implement the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS) by 2030
40% reduction in methane and
hydrofluorocarbon emissions below 2013
levels.
CARB,
CalRecycle,
CDFA,
SWRCB,
Local Air Districts
Consistent. These are not emission related to
the proposed Project. Hence, the proposed
Project would not obstruct or interfere agency
efforts to reduce SLPS emissions.
50% reduction in black carbon emissions
below 2013 levels.
By 2019, develop regulations and programs to
support organic waste landfill reduction goals
in the SLCP and SB 1383.
CARB,
CalRecycle,
CDFA
SWRCB,
Local Air Districts
Consistent. The new development would be
required through City permitting to implement
waste reduction and recycling measures
consistent with state and City requirements.
The Project would not obstruct or interfere
agency efforts to support organic waste landfill
reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383.
Implement the post -2020 Cap- and-Trade
Program with declining annual caps. CARB
Consistent. The Project is not applicable to
implementation of Cap -and-Trade Program
provisions. Thus, the P roject would not
obstruct or i nterfere implementation the post-
2020 Cap-and-Trade Program.
By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink
Protect land from conversion through
conservation easements and other incentives.
CNRA,
Departments Within
CDFA,
Consistent. The Project site is in an urban area
and does not include, or adjacent to,
conservation easements. Thus, the Project
Environmental Initial Study 33 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CalEPA,
CARB
would not obstruct or interfere agency efforts
to protect land from conversion through
conservation easements and other incentives.
Increase the long-term resilience of carbon
storage in the land base and enhance
sequestration capacity
Consistent. The Project provides for
residential development. The Project would not
obstruct or interfere agency efforts to i ncrease
the long-term resilience of carbon storage in the
land base and enhance sequestration capacity.
Utilize wood and agricultural products to
increase the amount of carbon stored in the
natural and built environments
Consistent. Where appropriate, the new
development would incorporate wood or wood
products. The P roject would not obstruct or
interfere agency efforts to encourage use of
wood and agricultural products to increase the
amount of carbon stored in the natural and built
environments.
Establish scenario projections to serve as the
foundation for the Implementation Plan
Consistent. The Project would not obstruct or
interfere agency efforts to e stablish scenario
projections to serve as the foundation for the
Implementation Plan.
Establish a carbon accounting framework for
natural and working lands as described in SB
859 by 2018
CARB
Consistent. The Project would not obstruct or
interfere agency efforts to establish a carbon
accounting framework for natural and working
lands as described in SB 859.
Implement Forest Carbon Plan
CNRA,
California Department
of Forestry and Fire
Protection
(CAL FIRE),
CalEPA and
Departments Within
Consistent. The Project would not obstruct or
interfere agency efforts to implement the Forest
Carbon Plan.
Identify and expand funding and financing
mechanisms to support GHG reductions
across all sectors.
State Agencies &
Local Agencies
Consistent. The Project would not obstruct or
interfere agency efforts to identify and expand
funding and financing mechanisms to support
GHG reductions across all sectors.
Overall, the proposed single-family residential units do not include any feature that would require significant energy or water use, or otherwise interfere with implementation of these requirements. In addition, as described above, the proposed P roject would not exceed the regional GHG thresholds. Therefore, impacts related to an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases would be less than significant.
Environmental Initial Study 34 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
9a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Public Safety Element, GP 2025 FEIR, 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, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix G), Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix H))
Less Than Significant Impact. A hazardous material is typically defined as any material that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant potential hazard to human health and safety or th e environment if released. Hazardous material s may include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that would be harmful if released.
There are multiple state and local laws that regulate the storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. The Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Branch is the local administrative agency that coordinates the following programs that regulate hazardous materials and hazardous wastes: Underground Storage Tanks (UST), Above Ground Petroleum S torage Tanks, Hazardous Materials Disclosure Plan Business Plans, and California Accidental Release Program (CalARP).
The Phase I and Phase II Environmental Assessments completed testing of soil piles on the eastern portion of the Project site for heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), and semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) to investigate their suitability for reuse on a residential site. The testing indicated that chemicals of concern were either not dete cted or detected a concentration generally acceptable for future residential development. Therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant.
The Project would develop and operate 96 single-family residences on an undeveloped Project site that is surrounded by similar residential uses and undeveloped lands that are zoned for residential uses. The proposed construction activities would involve transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, oils, grease, and ca ulking. In addition, hazardous materials could be used for fueling and serving construction equipment onsite. These types of hazardous materials used during construction are not acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, use, and disposal of these materials are regulated by state and federal laws that the Project is required to strictly adhere to. As a result, the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities of the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Operation of the proposed P roject includes activities related to residential development, which use hazardous materials including solvents, cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, batteries, and aerosol cans. Although residents of the Project may utilize common types of hazardous materials generally classified as household hazardous waste, normal routine use of these products would not result in a significant hazard to residents or workers in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous waste during operation of the proposed Project, and impacts would be less than significant
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
9b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Public Safety Element, GP 2025 FEIR 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 , Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix G), Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix H))
Environmental Initial Study 35 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than Significant. As described in Response 9a., construction activities would be required to adhere to all applicable regulations regard ing hazardous materials storage and handling, as well as to implement construction BMPs to prevent a hazardous materials release and to promptly contain and clean up any spills, which would minimize the potential for harmful exposures. With compliance to existing laws and regulations, the Project’s construction-related impacts to public or the environment from accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant.
During operation of the proposed residences, the residents may utilize and store small quantities of hazardous materials such as household cleaners, solvents, paints, and pesticides. These types of hazardous materials are regulated by existing laws that have been implemented to reduce risks related to the use of these substances. In addition, the P roject must comply with the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Authority for disposal of any hazardous materials at either appropriate waste facilitie s or service providers. Therefore, hazardous materials impacts related to operation of the proposed P roject would be less than significant.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
9c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Public Safety and Education Elements, GP 2025 FEIR 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, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix G), Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix H)) Less Than Sig nificant Impact. The closest school to the P roject site is the Mark Twain Elementary, which is located at 19411 Krameria Avenue, approximately 0. 25 mile from the Project site. As described above, construction and operation of the proposed residential project would involve the use, storage, and disposal of small amounts of hazardous materials on the Project site. These hazardous materials would be limited and used and disposed of in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, which would reduce the potential of accidental release into the environment near the school.
Additionally, the emissions that would be generated from construction and operation of the Project were evaluated in the Air Quality analysis presented in Section 3, and the emissions generated from the P roject would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the federal or state air quality standards. Thus, the P roject would not emit hazardous or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste near the school, and impacts would be less than significant . d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
9d. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS -5 – Hazardous Waste Sites, GP 2025 FEIR Tables 5.7- A – CERCLIS Facility Information, Figure 5.7-B – Regulated Facilities in TRI Information, 5.7-C – DTSC EnviroStor Database Listed Sites, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Appendix G) No Impact. A search of selected government databases was conducted during preparation of the Phase I and the environmental database report system did not identify the Project site on any list of hazardous material sites (Leighton 2021).
In addition, the Phase I conducted a search to identify if there are any hazardous material uses in the Project vicinity that could adversely affect the Project site. Information from the search was reviewed for potential environmental concerns; however, none of the offsite listings were identified as a potential impact (Leighton 20 21). Therefore, the proposed P roject would not be located on a list of hazardous material sites or create a significant hazard to the public or the environment , and no impacts would occur.
Environmental Initial Study 36 PR-2021-001053
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 result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
9e. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS -6 – Airport Safety Zones and Influence Areas, 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)
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located within Zone E of the March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port Land Use Compatibility Plan . The March Air Reserve Base is approximately 4 miles east of the P roject site. Zone “E” is beyond the 55 dBA CNEL noise contour and the proposed P roject would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive airport related noise levels, and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. Also, as shown on General Plan Airport Safety Zones Figure and Map RI-1, Compatibility Map Riverside Municipal Airport of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Project site is not located within a flight corridor or approach/departure corridor . Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact related to both noise and safety hazards for people residing or working in the Project area, and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
9f. Response: (Source Riverside Fire Department, https://www.riversideca.gov/fire/oem/default.asp) (California Temporary Traffic Control Handbook, (Caltrans 2018) https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inline - files/tcm_0.pdf)
Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Riverside’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM), also known as the City of Riverside Fire Department’s Emergency Services Division, administers a comprehensive all -hazards community- based emergency management program. The proposed Project would provide single-family residential uses that would be permitted and approved in compliance with existing safety regulations, such as the California Building Code and Fire Code to ensure that it would not conflict with implementation of an emergency evacuation.
The proposed construction activities, i ncluding equipment and supply staging and storage, would largely occur within the Project site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the P roject site or adjacent areas. During construction of sidewalks and infrastructure connections, one lane of the adjacent roadways could be temporarily closed to through traffic.
However, one lane would be available for emergency access the other roadways would remain open, which would provide adequate emergency access to the P roject site and vicinity. Any temporary lane closures would be implemented consistent with the recommendations of the California Temporary Traffic Control Handbook to ensure that emergency vehicle access is maintained (Caltrans 2018). Thus, impacts related to interference with an adop ted emergency response of evacuation plan during construction activities would be less than significant.
Operation of the proposed P roject would also not result in a physical interference with an emergency response evacuation.
Direct access to the P roject site would be provided from Krameria Avenue and Lurin Avenue, which are adjacent to the Project site. The P roject is also required to design and construct internal access roads of sufficient size to accommodate emergency vehicles and provide fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants , fire sprinklers and fire-resistant construction materials) in conformance with the City Mun icipal Code. In addition, the development plans would be consistent with the requirements in the International Fire Code and Section 503 of the California Fire Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9). As such, the proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. g. Expose people or structures , either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Environmental Initial Study 37 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9g. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS -7 – Fire Hazard Areas, GIS Map Layer VHFSZ 2010, City of Riverside’s EOP, 2002http://intranet/Portal/uploads/Riv City EOP complete.pdf , Riverside Operational Area – Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP, 2004 Part 1/Part 2 and OEM’s Strategic Plan)
No Impact. The Project site is located within a developed area, not adjacent to wildlands, and is not located within an identified wildland fire hazard area, as identified by the General Plan Figure 5.7-3, Fire Hazard Areas. The proposed Project would be implemented in compliance with the City Fire Code requirements, as included in Municipal Code Chapter 16.32.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfires, and no impact would occur.
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
10a. Response: (Source: General Plan EIR; Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix F); Preliminary Hydrology Study (Appendix J))
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located within the Santa Ana Region (Region 8) of the California RWQCB. The Santa Ana RWQCB sets water quality standards for all ground and surface waters within its region. Water quality standards are defined under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to include both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the levels of water quality that must be met and maintained to protect those uses (water quality objectives). Water quality standards for all ground and surface waters overseen by the Santa Ana RWQCB are documented in its Basin Plan, and the regulatory program of the Santa Ana RWQCB is designed to minimize and control discharges to surface and groundw ater, largely through permitting, such that water quality standards are effectively attained.
The Project site is generally undeveloped with exception of a residence on the southeastern portion of the site. The Preliminary Hydrology Study describes that s tormwater that does not infiltrate into the onsite pervious surfaces, sheet flows from the north-easterly portion of the site to the westerly portion of the site.
Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would require grading and excavation of s oils, which would loosen sediment, and then have the potential to mix with surface water runoff and degrade water quality. Additionally, construction would require the use of heavy equipment and construction- related chemicals, such as concrete, cement, asp halt, fuels, oils, antifreeze, transmission fluid, grease, solvents, and paints. These potentially harmful materials could be accidentally spilled or improperly disposed of during construction and, if mixed with surface water runoff could wash into and pol lute waters.
These types of water quality impacts during construction of the P roject would be prevented through implementation of a grading and erosion control plan that is required by the Construction Activities General Permit (State Water Resources Board Order No. 2009- 009-DWQ, NPDES No. 99 -08-DWQ), which requires preparation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The SWPPP is required for plan check and approval by the City’s Public Works Department , prior to provision of permits for the Project, and would include construction BMPs such as:
• Silt Fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags;
• Street sweeping and vacuuming;
• Storm drain inlet protection;
• Stabilized construction entrances/exits;
• Vehicle and equipment maintenance, cleaning, and fueling; • Hydroseeding;
• Material delivery and storage;
Environmental Initial Study 38 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• Stockpile management;
• Spill prevention and control;
• Solid waste management; and
• Concrete waste management.
Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the appropriate BMPs per the permitting process would ensure that potential water quality degradation associated wi th construction activities would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
The proposed Project would introduce single-family residential uses to the P roject site, which would introduce the potential for pollutants such as chemicals from household cleaners, pathogens from pet wastes, nutrients from fertilizer, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and grease from vehicles. T hese pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters and result in degradation of water quality.
However, in accordance with State Water Resources Board Order No. 2012 -0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 the proposed Project would be required to inc orporate post-construction (or permanent) Low Impact Development (LID) site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs into the Project. The LID site design would minimize impervious surfaces and provide infiltration of runoff into landscaped areas.
The source control BMPs would minimize the introduction of pollutants that may result in water quality impacts and provide treatment control BMPs that would treat stormwater runoff. The P roject would install catch basins with biotreatment filters to tr eat stormwater, and remove coarse sediment, trash, and pollutants (i.e., sediments, nutrients, heavy metals, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria, and pesticides). The types of source control BMPs that would be implemented for the proposed Project are listed in Table HWQ-1.
Table HWQ-1: Types of Source Control BMPs Incorporated into the Project Design Type of BMP Description of BMPs
LID Site
Design
Optimize the site layout: The site has been designed so that runoff from impervious surfaces would flow over pervious surfaces. Runoff would be directed to landscape areas and bioretention basins to slow, retain, and infiltrate runoff.
Use pervious surfaces : Landscaping and bioretention facilities are incorporated into the Project design to increase the amount of pervious area and on-site retention of stormflows.
Source
Control
Storm Drain Stenciling: All storm drains would be stenciled with the words “Only Rain Down the Storm Drain,” or equivalent message.
Need for future indoor & structural pest control : Buildings would be designed to avoid openings that would encourage entry of pests.
Landscape/outdoor pesticide use: Final landscape plans would accomplish all of the following:
• Design landscaping to minimize irrigation and runoff, to promote surface infiltration where appropriate, and to minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to storm water pollution.
• Consider using pest-resistant plants, especially adjacent to hardscape. • Preserve existing native trees and ground cover to the maximum extent possible.
Roofing, gutters, and trim: The architectural design would avoid roofing, gutters, and trim made of copper or other unprotected metals that may leach into runoff.
Treatment
Control
Bioretention Basins: The bioretention facilities proposed for the Project would retain , filter, and infiltrate runoff to treat and reduce discharge.
Environmental Initial Study 39 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
With implementation of the operational BMPs that would be required by the City pursuant to the NPDES permit, which would be verified during the permitting process for the proposed Project, potential pollutants would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible, and development of the proposed P roject would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including but not limited to increasing pollutant discharges to receiving waters, and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
10b. Response: (Source: 20 20 Urban Water Management Plan for Western Municipal Water District , June 20 21 (UWMP 20 20). Accessible: https://www.wmwd.com/DocumentCenter/View/5433/Western-Final-Adopted- UWMP_20210630?bidId= ; Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan, (Appendix I)) Less than Significant Impact. The domestic and irrigation water for the proposed P roject would be supplied to the P roject by the Western Municipal Water District. As outlined in the City’s 20 20 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) (page 3- 8), regional growth projections from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which are based on the City’s General Plan Land Useand zoning designations, are used in the UWMP to identify future water demands.
The Project site is currently designated as LDR – Low Density Residential and MDR, which allows a maximum of 6 dwelling units per acre and 8 units per acre,respectively. The proposed Project would result in an overall density of 5.07 units per acre, which is less than the allowable General Plan Land Use designation criteria and would be consistent with existing growth projections. Therefore, the development of this site was considered in developing the UWMP growth projections and related water demands.
The Project site is located over the Arlington Basin. Since the Arlington Basin is located at the southern part of the City .
Groundwater quality in the Arlington B asin has historically been degraded by elevated concentrations of TDS, nitrate, and other contaminants. To utilize Arlington Basin groundwater, Western Municipal Water District operates the Arlington Desalter, a reverse-osmosis groundwater treatment facility. The Arlington Basin is not adjudicated. Western Municipal Water District has adopted the Arlington Basin Groundwater Management Plan to protect and improve groundwater quality of the basin. The 2020 UWMP does not project increased demand for groundwater from the Arlington Basin. Additional sources of water include imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s (MWD) (UWMP 2020).
Th
e Western Municipal Water District has historically provided the City of Riverside water servce areas between 27,586 and 21,457 acre-feet of water. In 2020, the Western Municipal Water District provided the City 22,969 acre-feet of water, 4,814 acre-feet of which was Arlington Basin groundwater. The 2020 UWMP details that the Western Municipal Water District would be able to meet all its water demands in both normal and multiple-dry year conditions through 2045 without increasing use of groundwater.
The Western Municipal Water District 2020 UWMP identifies a total demand of 27,647 acre-feet annually from the City of Riverside in 2025. By the year 2030 this demand is projected to increase to 31,101 acre -feet, which includes demand from the proposed Project as it is within the anticipated buildout of the General Plan land use designations and within the regional growth projections. The Project would utilize the planned sources of water within the anticipated water demand and supply projections and would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. Impacts related to water demand upon groundwater supplies would be less than significant.
Regarding infiltration of runoff water, the soils report attached the project’s WQMP describes that the onsite soils have a poor infiltration rate (WQMP 20 21). Thus, the existing onsite soils do not provide a substantial source of infiltration. However, the Project includes installation of landscape areas that would be pervious and two bioretention basins that would treat and
infiltrate runoff. One bioretention basin would be located in the western portion of the site adjacent to Wood Road and the other would be located in the southern portion of the site along Lurin Avenue . Due to the existing low infiltration rate of the existing site and the provision of infiltration onsite the proposed Project would not substantially interfer e with groundwater Environmental Initial Study 40 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
recharge, and impacts would be less than significant.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or-off-site? 10i Response: (Source: Preliminary grading plan, Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix I), and Preliminary Hydrology Report (Appendix J))
Le
ss Than Significant Impact.
C
onstruction
Construction of the proposed Project would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen sediment and could result in erosion or siltation. However, construction of the proposed P roject requires City approval of a grading and erosion control plan per the Construction Activities General Permit (State Water Resources Board Order No. 2009-009-DWQ, NPDES No. 99-08-DWQ), which requires preparation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The grading and erosion control plan and SWPPP are required for plan check and approval by the City’s Public Works Department, prior to provision of permits for the P roject, and would include construction BMPs to reduce erosion or siltation. Typical BMPs for erosion or siltation include: use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, gravel bags, stabilized construction driveway, and stockpile management (as described in response 10a above). Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the required BMPs per the permitting process would ensure that erosion and siltation associated with construction activities would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant.
O
peration
The Project would develop large areas of impervious surfaces. Although an increase of impervious surfaces would occur by implementation of the Project, the existing onsite soils have a low infiltration rate and the site drainage would be designed to closely mimic the existing drainage conditions, as detailed in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the P roject (Appendix I). Runoff from the impervious surfaces that would be created by the Project would be conveyed into bioretention basins that would retain, treat, and remove sediment before discharging stormwater into the existing offsite drainage system.
The use of bioretention facilities would reduce the velocity, and the potential for erosion. Overall, the proposed Project would not alter an existing drainage pattern that could result in substantial erosion or siltation, and impacts would be less than significant.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -
or-off-site?
10ii Response: (Source: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix I), and Preliminary Hydrology Study, (Appendix J))
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site does not receive run -off, and according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the P roject site (06065C0740G), the P roject site is located within “Zone D,” which is an area of undetermined flood hazard. Therefore, there is a low potential for onsite flooding to occur during construction activities, and impacts relating to flooding both on - and off-site during construction would be less than significant.
The Project site is currently undeveloped and largely pervious. The Project would include development of impervious surfaces from building pads, driveways, roadways, sidewalks, and other such P roject features. Although a substantial change of impervious surfaces would occur by implementation of the Project, the operational drainage would closely mimic the existing drainage conditions because the Project would construct bioretention facilities that would capture, retain, and slowly discharge runoff. The hydrologic design of the proposed drainage facil ities would control the velocity and amount of runoff to ensure Environmental Initial Study 41 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
that runoff does not exceed pre -development conditions (WQMP 2021). As detailed in the Preliminary Hydrology Study (Appendix J), each of the bioretention facilities would exceed the required design capture volume, which would accommodate the stormwater from the Project site. As a result, implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, and impacts would be less than significant.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
10iii Response: (Source: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix I), and Preliminary Hydrology Study (Appendix J))
Le
ss Than Significant Impact.
Construction
As described above, the P roject would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen sediment and could temporarily alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and result in additional sources of polluted runoff. However, implementation of P roject construction requires approval of a grading and erosion control plan per the City’s existing requirements and the NPDES requires preparation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, which both include construction BMPs to minimize the potential for construction related sources of pollution or increases in stormwater flows that could result in flooding. Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the required BMPs per the permitting process would ensure that increases in runoff and pollution associated with construction activities would be less than significant.
Operation
The Project would develop an onsite stormwater drainage system that would convey drainage to bioretention basins to treat and infiltrate flows. The hydrologic design of the proposed drainage facilities would control the velocity and amount of runoff to ensure that runoff does not exceed pre -development conditions. As detailed in the Preliminary Hydrology Study (Appendix J), each of the bioretention facilities would exceed the required design capture volume. One bioretention basin would be located in the western portion of the site adjacent to Wood Road and other would be located in the southern portion of the site along Lurin Avenue. Proposed basin volume for each bioretention basin would be 21,800 cubic feet. The basins will be connected to a detention pipe system underneath and discharge runoffs to the offsite storm drain system on Wood Road.
As the facilities proposed for the Project have been designed to meet the required design capture volume, implementation of the proposed P roject would not increase the rate or amount of runoff that could result in exceedance of the stormwater drainage system, and impacts would be less than significant. Also, as described above and listed in Table HWQ-1 in Response
10.a and the Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix I), the Project would include source control BMPs to minimize the introduction of pollutants. With implementation of the operational source BMPs and bioretention basin BMPs, potential pollutants would be reduced, and implementation of the proposed P roject would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; thus, impacts would be less than significant. iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
10 iv. Response: (Source: General Plan EIR Figure 5.8-2, Flood Hazard Areas; FEMA FIRM Map Number 06065C0715G)
No Impact. As described in Response 10ii, the P roject site is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area. Thus, the proposed Project would not place structures within a flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows, and no impacts would occur.
Environmental Initial Study 42 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
10d. Response: (Source: GP 2025 FEIR Chapter 7.5.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality) No Impact. As described previously, the Project site is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area. 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 would occur. Additionally, the P roject site and its surroundings have generally flat topography and is within an urbanized area not within proximity to Lake Mathews, Lake Evans, the Santa Ana River, Lake Hills, Norco Hills, Box Springs Mountain Area or any of the 9 arroyos which transverse the City and its sphere of influence. Therefore, no impact potential for seiche or mudflow exists.
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? 10e. Response: (Source: Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix I ), and Preliminary Hydrology Report, (Appendix J))
Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Response 10a, the water quality control plan of the Santa Ana RWQCB is designed to minimize and control discharges to surface and groundwater, largely through permitting, such that water quality standards are effectively attained. The Preliminary Hydrology Study describes that stormwater that does not infiltrate into the onsite pervious surfaces, and sheet flows from the north-easterly portion of the site to the westerly portion of the site.
Potential water quality impacts during construction of the Project would be prevented through implementation of a grading and erosion control plan that is requi red by the Construction Activities General Permit, which requires preparation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The SWPPP is required for plan check and approval by the City’s Public Works Department, prior to provision of permits for the Project . Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of the appropriate BMPs per the permitting process would ensure that construction activities would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control or groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
Also, operational related conflicts would be avoided by incorporation of LID site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs into the Project in accordance with State Water Resources Board Order No . 2012- 0006-DWQ, NPDES No.
CAS000002. The Project would install catch basins with biotreatment filters to treat stormwater, and remove coarse sediment, trash, and pollutants. Compliance with the NPDES permit would be verified during the permitting process for the Project, and would ensure that the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control or groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
11a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Land Use and Urban Design Element, Project site plan) No Impact. The physical division of an established community could occur if a major road (expressway or freeway, for example) were built through an existing community or neighborhood, or if a major development was built which was inconsistent with the land uses in the community such that it divided the community. The environmental effects caused by such a facility or land use could include lack of, or disruption of, access to services, schools, or shopping areas. It might also include the creation of blighted buildings or areas due to the division of the community.
The Project site is undeveloped, with exception of one vacant residence, and is within a developed or developing residential area. The proposed single -family residential project is consistent with the existing single -family residential land uses Environmental Initial Study 43 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
surrounding the Project site. In addition, the Project would not change roadways or areas outside of the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community, and no impacts would occur. b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a c onflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 11b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025, G eneral Plan 2025 Figure LU-10 – Land Use Policy Map, Table LU -5 – Zoning/General Plan Consistency Matrix, Orangecrest Specific Plan, Title 19 – Zoning Code) Le
ss Than Significant Impact.
General Plan. As shown in Figure 3, Existing General Plan Designations, the northern portion of the site has a General Plan land use designation of MDR -Medium Density Residential that allows up to 6.2 units per acre or 8 units per acre with a Planned Residential Development (PRD); and the southern portion of the site has a General Plan land use designation of LDR-Low Density Residential that allows up to 4.1 units per acre or 6 units per acre with a PRD. The P roject site is also within the Orangecrest Specific Plan Planning Areas 107 -B and 107-C. The surrounding areas are designated as either Low Density Residential or Medium Density Residential, which both allows for single -family residences. The proposed P roject would result in an overall density of 5.07 du/acre, which is consistent and compatible with the land use designation of the site and the surrounding residential densities. Thus, the Project would not conflict with applicable General Plan land use plan for the site.
Zoning. The site has a zoning designation of R -1-13000 Single Family Residential within the Orangecrest Specific Plan (OSP) Overlay Zone and in the OSP-RA-SP – Residential Agricultural and Specific Plan (Orangecrest) Overlay Zones (Figure 5, Existing Zoning Designation and Specific Plan Planning Areas). Overlay Planning Area 107-B (the northern portion of the site) provides for development consistent with R -1-8500 Single Family Residential Zone and Overlay Planning Area 107-C (the southern portion of the site) provides for development c onsistent with R-1-13000 Single Family Residential Zone upon diminishment of Woodcrest Agricultural Preserve No. 7, which is part of the proposed Project . T he Project would be consistent with the existing zoning and Orangecrest Specific Plan provisions.
The Project would develop 24 residential units within the 3.783-acre northern portion of the site that would allow development consistent with R-1-8500 zoning, which would result in 6.3 units per acre and would be consistent with the allowable density of the zone. The Project would also develop 72 residential units within the southern 15.136-acre portion of the site that would allow development consistent with R-1- 13000 zoning, which would result in 4.7 units per acre and would be within the allowable density of the zone. As such, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect .
12. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
12a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 EIR Figure 5.10-1, Mineral Resources) N
o Impact. The General Plan EIR, Figure 5.10-1, Mineral Resources, identifies that the Project site is within MRZ-4, which is defined as areas where there is insufficient data to assign any mineral resource designation. No existing or abandoned quarries or mines exist in the area surrounding the Project site, and the Project site and surrounding have no history of mining or containing mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would not 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, and no impacts would occur.
Environmental Initial Study 44 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
12b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure – OS-1 – Mineral Resources)
No Impact. Review of the General Plan 2025 FPEIR Figure 5.10- 1 indicates there are no mineral resource recovery sites delineated within the City or Riverside. Thus, the proposed P roject would not 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, and impact s would not occur. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed Project would result in no impact.
13. NOISE.
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
13a. Response: (Source: General Plan Figure N -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, FEIR Table 5.11-I – Existing and Future Noise Contour Comparison, Table 5.11- E – Interior and Exterior Noise Standards, Title 7 – Noise Code, Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K).
Less Than Significant Impact.
Construction
Construction noise sources are regulated within the City of Riverside under Section 7.35.020(G) of the City’s Municipal Code which prohibits construction activities between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, between the hours of 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM on Saturdays, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday.
Although construction activity may be exempt from the noise standards in the City’s Municipal Code, CEQA requires that potential noise impacts still be evaluated for significance.
The City of Riverside has not adopted a numerical threshold that identifies what a substantial increase would be. For purposes of this analysis, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2018) criteria will be used to establish significance thresholds. The FTA provides reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise impacts based on the potential for adverse community reaction. For residential uses, the daytime noise threshold is 80 dBA Leq averaged over an 8- hour period (Leq (8-hr); and the nighttime noise threshold is 70 dBA Leq (8-hr). In compliance with the City’s Code, it is assumed that construction would not occur during the nighttime hours.
The proposed P roject would develop and operate 9 6 single-family residences on the P roject site. Construction noise levels will vary significantly based upon the size and topographical features of the active construction zone, duration of the workday, and types of equipment em ployed. A Noise Analysis was prepared for the Project to analyze potential construction and operatrional noise impacts (see Appendix K). As shown on Table N-1, construction equipment used for the Project generates noise up to 89.6 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source. However, typical operating cycles for construction equipment involves one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minute s at lower power settings.
Thus, construction equipment noise is not continuous. A summary of noise level data for a variety of construction equipment is listed in Table N-1.
Table N-1. Construction Equipment Noise Emissions and Acoustical Usage Factor
Environmental Initial Study 45 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Equipment Description
Impact
Device?
Acoustical
use Factor
(%)
Spec. Lmax @
50ft (dBA, slow)
Actual Measured
Lmax @ 50ft
(dBA, slow)
No. of
Actual Data
Samples
(Count)
Compressor (air) No 40 80 78 18
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 85 79 40
Concrete Saw No 20 90 89.6 55
Crane No 16 85 81 405
Dozer No 40 85 82 55
Excavator No 40 85 81 170
Forklift1,2 No 50 n/a 61 n/a
Front End Loader No 40 80 79 96
Generator No 50 82 81 19
Grader No 40 85 -N/A- 0
Paver No 50 85 77 9
Pickup Truck No 50 85 77 9
Paving Equipment No 20 90 -N/A- 9
Roller No 20 85 80 16
Scraper No 40 85 84 12
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe No 25 80 -N/A- 0
Welder/Torch No 40 73 74 5
Source: EPD Solutions, 2021
1 Warehouse & Forklift Noise Exposure - NoiseTesting.info Carl Stautins, November 4, 2014 http://www.noisetesting.info/blog/carl- strautins/page-3/
2 Data provided Leq as measured at the operator. Sound Level at 50 feet is estimated.
Construction noise associated with the project was calculated utilizing methodology from FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018) together with se veral key construction parameters including: distance to each sensitive receiver, equipment usage, percent usage factor, and baseline parameters for the project site. The equipment used to calculate the construction noise levels for each phase were based o n the assumptions provided in the CalEEMod Emission Summary prepared for the proposed project (April 2021). Distances to receptors were based on the acoustical center of the proposed construction activity. Therefore, the distance to each receptor used in t he modeling was the estimated distance from the acoustical center of the project site to the receptor. Construction noise levels were calculated for each phase. To be conservative, the noise generated by each piece of equipment was added together for each phase of construction; however, it is unlikely (and unrealistic) that every piece of equipment will be used at the same time, at the same distance from the receptor, for each phase of construction.
As shown in Table N -2, the noisiest construction phase is anticipated to occur during grading, where the highest modeled construction noise levels could reach up to 74.3 dBA L eq at the façade of the closest residential receptors located northwest of the site (in the vicinity of STNM2). Other receptors located further from the center of construction activity would experience lower noise levels.
Table N-2. Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors Construction
Phase Receptor Location
Existing
Ambient
Noise Levels
(dBA Leq)
Construction
Noise Levels
at Receptor
Locations
(dBA Leq)
Demolition
Northwest (STNM2) 69.3 73.6
Northeast (STNM3) 46.6 68.6
East (STNM 4) 62.6 65.9
Environmental Initial Study 46 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
West (STNM2) 69.3 65.0
North (STNM1) 58.7 61.2
Site Preparation
Northwest (STNM2) 69.3 72.4
Northeast (STNM3) 46.6 67.4
East (STNM 4) 62.6 64.7
West (STNM2) 69.3 63.9
North (STNM1) 58.7 58.5
Grading
Northwest (STNM2) 69.3 74.3
Northeast (STNM3) 46.6 69.3
East (STNM 4) 62.6 66.6
West (STNM2) 69.3 65.8
North (STNM1) 58.7 60.6
Building
Construction
Northwest (STNM2) 69.3 68.9
Northeast (STNM3) 46.6 64.0
East (STNM 4) 62.6 61.2
West (STNM2) 69.3 60.4
North (STNM1) 58.7 56.7
Paving
Northwest (STNM2) 69.3 70.3
Northeast (STNM3) 46.6 65.4
East (STNM 4) 62.6 62.6
West (STNM2) 69.3 61.8
North (STNM1) 58.7 58.8
Architectural
Coating
Northwest (STNM2) 69.3 61.0
Northeast (STNM3) 46.6 56.0
East (STNM 4) 62.6 53.3
West (STNM2) 69.3 52.4
North (STNM1) 58.7 47.1
Source: EPD Solutions, 2021
Furthermore, per FTA, daytime construction noise levels would not be anticipated to exceed 80 dBA Leq for an 8-hour period at residential uses. Therefore, as the highest construction noise levels are less than 80 dBA, project construction would not be anticipated to exceed FTA thresholds. In addition to adherence to the City of Riverside Municipal Code which limits the construction hours, the following best management practices (BMPs) are recommended that would further reduce noise levels associated with the construction of the proposed project:
1. During all project site excavation and grading on- site, construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturer standards.
2. The contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
3. As applicable, all equipment shall be shut off and not left to idle when not in use.
Environmental Initial Study 47 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
4. The contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise/vibration sources and sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.
5. Jackhammers, pneumatic equipment and all other portable stationary noise sources shall be shielded and noise shall be directed away from sensitive receptors.
6. The project proponent shall mandate that the construction contractor prohibit the use of music or sound amplification on the project site during construction.
7. T
he construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment.
T
herefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact on temporary noise.
O
peration
P
otential noise impacts associated with increases in ambient noise from operation of stationary noise sources are based on the following criteria. Noise level increases below 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment, and an increase or decrease in noise level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected.1 Therefore, the City’s ambient noise threshold for stationary sources is a clearly perceptible increase of 5 dBA in for ambient noise increases to be considered significant. 2 The following section provides an analysis of potential long-term offsite and onsite noise impacts associated with the ongoing operations of the proposed project.
P
otential On-Site Noise Impacts
P
arking Noise
Noise would be generated by parking activities along the street, in drive -ways, and in private garages. Sources of noise associated with parking would include engines accelerating, doors slamming, car alarms, and people talking. Noise levels associated with parking would fluctuate with the amount of automobile and human activity. It is anticipated that the types of parking related noise would be substantially similar to the noise generated by the existing street parking and roadway activity in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, noise impacts associated with parking would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
St
ationary Noise Sources
The proposed P roject includes on- site ground-floor HVAC units for each residential unit that could potentially operate 24 hours per day and would generate noise levels of 66.5 dBA Leq at 5 feet. At a distance of 20 feet, the noise levels from the HVAC units would be reduced to 54.5 dBA, and further reduced by 5 dBA by shielding from the proposed 6- foot-high perimeter wall, which would reduce noise volumes at 20 feet to approximately 4.9.5 dBA. Although the operation of this equipment would generate noise, the location of all mechanical equ ipment would be reviewed during the City’s permitting process and would be required to comply with the regulations under Section 7.25.010 of the Municipal Code. Therefore, impacts related to stationary noise sources would be less than significant with comp liance to existing regulations. No mitigation measures are required.
P
otential Off-Site Vehicular Noise Impacts
T
he Existing Plus Project average daily traffic (ADT) were calculated by EPD for road segments within the Project’s vicinity.
Noise impacts r elated to vehicular traffic were modeled using a version of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 1 Section 5.11 – Noise of the General Plan and Supporting Documents Environmental Impact Report. Page 5.11-26. Albert A. Webb Associates. Certified November 2007.
2 Ibid.
Environmental Initial Study 48 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108), as modified for CNEL and the “Calveno” energy curves. The calculated noise levels in Table N-3 show that the Project would contribute a maximum of 0.3 dBA to existing noise levels along Krameria Avenue west of Cole Avenue. The P roject-related increase in traffic noise does not exceed the 5 dBA threshold.
Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity.
Table N-3. Project Traffic Noise Contributions to Existing Scenario Road Segments
Existing Existing Plus Project
Is the Increase
Significant?
ADT
dB
CNEL
ADT
Total
Project
Increase
Van Buren Boulevard
w/o Wood St 42,054 73.9 42,493 74.0 0.1 No
e/o Wood St 40,117 73.7 40,293 73.8 0.1 No
at Trautwein-Cole Ave 41,461 73.9 41,637 73.9 0.0 No
Cole Avenue
s/o Van Buren Blvd 6,934 66.1 7,241 66.3 0.2 No
Krameria Avenue
w/o Cole Ave 2,752 62.1 2,928 62.4 0.3 No
e/o Cole Ave 1,870 60.4 1,914 60.5 0.1 No
Source: EPD Solutions, 2021
The Project would result in a less than significant impact on operational noise.
b. Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
13b. Response: (Source: FEIR Table 5.11 -G – Vibration Source Levels For Construction , Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K))
Potentially Significant Impact. The City currently does not have any adopted standards, guidelines, or thresholds relative to ground-borne vibration. Ground-borne noise refers to the noise generated by ground- borne vibration. Ground-borne noise that accompanies the building vibration is usually perceptible only inside buildings and typically is only an issue at locations with subway or tunnel operations where there is no airborne noise path or for buildings with substantial sound insulation such as a recording studio. 3 As such, available guidelines from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are utilized to assess impacts due to ground-borne vibration. The FTA has adopted vibration standards that are used to evaluate potential building damage impacts related to construction activities.
Table N-4. Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.50 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: EPD Solutions, 2021
3 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2018, pp 108, 112.
Environmental Initial Study 49 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
As shown in Table N -4, the threshold at which there is a risk to “architectural” damage to residential structures (non - engineered timber and masonry buildings) is a PPV of 0.2.
The FTA has also adopted standards associated with human annoyance for groundborne vibration impacts for the following three land-use categories:
(1) Vibration Category 1 – High Sensitivity,
(2) Vibration Category 2 – Residential, and
(3) Vibration Category 3 – Institutional.
The FTA defines Category 1 as buildings where vibration would interfere with operations within the building, including vibration-sensitive research and manufacturing facilities, hospitals with vibration -sensitive equipment, and university research operations. Vibration-sensitive equipm ent includes, but is not limited to, electron microscopes, high -resolution lithographic equipment, and normal optical microscopes. Category 2 refers to all residential land uses and any buildings where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. Category 3 refers to institutional land uses such as schools, churches, other institutions, and quiet offices that do not have vibration -sensitive equipment, but still have the potential for activity interference. The vibration criteria associated with human annoyance for these three land -use categories are shown in Table N-5. Table N -5 shows that 75 VdB is the threshold for annoyance from groundborne vibration at sensitive receptors.
Therefore, impacts would be significant if construction activities result in ground borne vibration of 0.2 PPV or higher at residential structures or 75 VdB.
Vibration generated by construction activity generally has the potential to damage structures. This damage could be structural damage, such as cracking of floor slabs, foundations, columns, beams, or wells, or cosmetic architectural damage, such as cracked plaster, stucco, or tile.
Table N-5. Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration Vibration
Velocity Level Human Perception
65 VdB Approximate threshold of perception for many people. 75 VdB Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Many people find that transportation-related vibration at this level is unacceptable. 85 VdB Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day.
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, September 2018.
The proposed Project would develop and operate 96 single-family residences on the Project site. Construction of the proposed project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The highest degree of groundborne vibration that would be generated during construction would be from operation of a vibratory roller and large bulldozer. At a distance of 5 feet vibratory roller operations are estimated to be approximately 2.348 inch -per-second PPV and large bulldozer operations are estimated to be 0.995 inch -per-second PPV, which exceeds the FTA significance thresholds (i.e., 0.2 inch- per-second PPV for potential structural damage to non- engineered timber and masonry buildings). However, at a distance of 120 feet, the vibration level from a vibratory roller is
0.02 in/sec PPV, and at a distance of 68 feet, the vibration level from a large bulldozer is 0.02 in/sec PPV, which meets the criteria to reduce potential structural damage to a less than significant level.
At a distance of 5 feet, use of a vibratory roller would be expected to generate 114.97 VdB and use of a bulldozer would be expected to generate 107.97 VdB,7 which would exceed 75 VdB. At a distance of 110 feet, use of a vibratory roller would be expected to generate 74.7 VdB and at a distance of 63 feet use of a bulldozer would be expected to generate 74.96 VdB. At this distance, annoyance-based impacts from groundborne vibration would be less than significant. Therefore , potentially significant impacts have been identified, this topic will be evaluated in the EIR, and appropriate mitigation measures will be included, as necessary..
Environmental Initial Study 50 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels?
13c. 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 Installatio n Compatible Use Zone Study for March Air Reserve Base (August 2005, Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix K)).
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located in Zone “E” of the March Air Reserve Base/March Inland Port Land Use Compatibility Plan, which has no restrictions related to development or land use. The March Air Reserve Base is approximately 4 miles east of the P roject site. Zone “E” and is beyond the 55 dBA CNEL noise contour. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to exposure of people residing or working in the Project area to excessive airport related noise levels.
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
14a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Land Use Element; State of California, Department of Finance, E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2020. Accessed :
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5; Southern California Assoiciation of Governments Demographics and Growth Forecast, September 2020. Accessed:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf)
Less than Significant Impact. As described previously, the 3.783-acre northern portion of the site has a General Plan land use designation of MDR -Medium Density Residential that allows up to 8 units per acre with a Planned Residential Development (PRD). The southern 15.136-acre portion of the site has a General Plan land use designation of LDR-Low Density Residential that allows u p to 6 units per acre with a PRD. The proposed P roject would result in an overall density of 5.07 du/acre, which is consistent and within the General Plan land use densities for the P roject site . Therefore, the residential development that would occur by the proposed Project is consistent with planned growth. Thus, the Project would not result in unplanned population.
The General Plan Land Use Table LU -3 assumes an average household size of 3. Based on the General Plan assumption, the 96 proposed single -family residences would result in a population of 288 residents . The California Department of Finance estimates that in January 2020, the City of Riverside ha d a population of 328,155 and 101,414 housing units. The proposed Project would result in a 0.09 percent increase in both residents and housing units in the City, which is not substantial growth.
According to the GP 2025 F inal Program EIR, the City has a projected population of 383,077 at the ultimate buildout of the City, which equates to a population increase of 54,922. The Project’s population increase of 288 residents would be 0.5 percent of the General Plan planned growth. In addition, the SCAG population projections show a City population of 395,800 in the year 2045, which would be an increase of 67,645 residents over the 2020 population and the Project’s 288 residents would be
0.4 percent of the increase. The SCAG projections also estimate that 115,100 households will exist in the City in 2045, which is an increase of 13,686 dwelling units over those in 2020. The 96 residences developed by the Project would consist of 0.7 percent of the increase in residntial units. Thus, impacts related to substantial unplanned growth would be less than significant.
Regarding the potential for indirect gr owth, the P roject would be served by the existing public roadways that surround the Project site; and would connect into the existing utility and infrastructure system. The Project does not include, and would not
Environmental Initial Study 51 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
result in, an extension of roads or other infrastructure outside of the Project area that could induce substantial population growth in the area. Therefore, the proposed P roject would result in less than significant impacts related to both direct and indirect inducement of growth.
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
14b. Response: (Source: Project site aerial photo)
No Impact. The Project site is undeveloped with exception of one vacant residential structure. The Project would not displace existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere . The Project would develop 96 residences, which would increase housing on the site and would not necessitate the replacement of housing elsewhere .
Therefore, the Project would result in no impact.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a. Fire protection?
15a. Response: (Source: FEIR Table 5.13 -B – Fire Station Locations, Table 5.13- C – Riverside Fire Department Statistics and Ordinance 5948 § 1)
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Riverside Fire Department operates 14 fire stations throughout the City. There are currently 2 fire stations within 5 miles of the Project site, as listed below:
• Station Number 9, located at 6674 Alessandro Boulevard, 4.7 miles from the P roject site • Station Number 11, located at 19595 Orange Terrace Parkway, 1.9 miles from the Project site
Implementation of the proposed P roject would be required to adhere to the Uniform Fire Code, as included in the City’s Municipal Code Section 16.32.10 and would be reviewed by the City’s Fire Prevention Division to ensure that the P roject plans meet the fire protection requirements.
Due to the limited increase in residents (approximately 288) that would occur from the proposed 96 single-family residences on the Project site, the Project would result in an incremental increase in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services; however, the increase in population is limited, and would not increase demands such that provision of a new or physically altered fire station would be required that could cause environmental impacts. Additi onally, as noted above regarding response 8 h., the Project is not in an area considered VHFSZ. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant.
b. Police protection?
15b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-8 – Neighborhood Policing Centers)
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Riverside Police Department provides law enforcement services to the City. The Police Department has three stations located at:
• 10540 Magnolia Avenue, which is 10 miles from the Project site • 4102 Orange Street, which is 9 miles from the Project site
Environmental Initial Study 52 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
• 8181 Lincoln Avenue, which is 7 miles from the Project site
As described by the City’s General Plan EIR, the Police Department does not use a formula for calculating the number of officers per capita. Instead, staffing is based on growth and evaluated on a project-by-project basis. The proposed P roject would result in an onsite population that would create the need for police services. Calls for police service during P roject construction may include: theft of building materials and construction equipment, malicious mischief, graffiti, and vandalism.
Operation of the single -family residences could generate a typical range of police service calls, such as vehicle burglaries, residential thefts, and disturbances. To reduce the potential for these types of cri mes, security concerns are addressed in the Project design by providing low-intensity street lighting and exterior building lighting to provide security.
Although an incremental increase in calls for law enforcement services could result from implementat ion of the Project, the need for law enforcement services from the proposed P roject would not be significant when compared to the current service levels of the Riverside Police Department and the small residential nature of the proposed Project. The additional 288 residents that are anticipated to be generated from full occupancy of the proposed P roject would not require the construction or expansion of police stations. Overall, the proposed P roject would not result in the need for, new or physically altere d police protection facilities, and substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or expanded facilities would not occur, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Schools?
15c. Response: (Source: Riverside Unified School District 2016 School Facilities Needs Analysis (RUSD 2016), Riverside Unified School District Website: http://riversideunified.org/)
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the Riverside Unified School District, which has 50 schools.
The schools serving the Project site are listed and described below. • Mark Twain Elementary School (grades K-6), located at 19411 Krameria Avenue. • Miller Middle School (grades 7-8), located at 17925 Krameria Avenue. • Martin Luther King High School (grades 9-12), located at 9301 Wood Road.
As described in the Riverside Unified School District 2016 School Facilities Needs Analysis, the school district uses the student generation factors that are listed in Table PS -1. As shown in the table below, it is anticipated that approximately 50 total students would be generated from build out of the proposed Project.
Table PS-1: Students Generated by the Project
School Grades
Served
Student Generation
Rates for Single-Family
Units
Number of Students
Generated by Project
Elementary K-6 0.2945 29
Middle 7-8 0.0906 9
High School 9-12 0.1230 12
Total K-12 0.5081 50
Source: Riverside Unified School District 2016 School Facilities Needs Analysis
The Riverside Unified School District levies school fees of $4.79 per square foot of new residential construction. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq. , payment of these fees would offset any potentially significant impacts to school facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. d. Parks?
15d. Response: (Source: 2025 General Plan FEIR, Section 5.14, Recreation)
Environmental Initial Study 53 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less than Significant Impact. According to the General Plan EIR, the City currently maintains 48 developed parks and 11 undeveloped parks that total 2,814 acres of parkland throughout the City. As described by the General Plan EIR, the City’s standards for parkland distribution is 3 developed acres per 1,000 population.
The Project would develop 96 residential units on the P roject site which, when fully occupied, would house approximately 288 residents. Based on the number of residents, the P roject would create a demand for 0. 86-acre (or 37,462 square feet) of parkland. As described in the project description, the Project includes 61,909 square feet of private recreation and park areas, which is 2 4,447 square feet more than the Zoning Code standard. Although, a slight increase in demand of existing parks could occur from the 288 residents that would be generated from the P roject, the limited number of residents and provision of onsite facilities would not require provision of new or physically altered parks.
In addition, to ensure the future provision of parkland in the City, the Project would be required to pay parkland development impact fees for regional parks, local parks, and aquatics facilities pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 16.44, 16.60, and
16.76. Overall, impacts related to parks would be less than significant.
e. Other public facilities?
15e. Response: (Source: Riverside Public Library Website: https://www.riversideca.gov/library/about.asp)
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Riverside Public Library consists of one Main Library and seven branch libraries.
The library system has a collection of approximately 425,000 books and other library materials, 400 public access computers, and an annual circulation of 1.23 million. The Orange Terrace Branch Library is over 13,000 square feet and is located at 20010 Orange Terrace Parkway, which is 2.4 mile from the P roject site. The proposed P roject may result in an incremental increase in the use of libraries and other public facilities. However, with a projected total of approximately 288 people occupying the residenc es, Project development is not expected to substantially increase the demand of these services such that construction of new or expanded facilities would be required. Thus, impacts would be less than significant .
16. RECREATION.
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
16a. Response: (Source: 2025 General Plan FEIR, Section 5.14, Recreation)
Less than Significant Impact. As described in response to Impact 15.d, the proposed Project includes development of 61,909 square feet of private park and recreational space on-site. The proposed Project would provide housing for approximately 288 residents, which would create a slight increase in demand on the existing recreation facilities; however, impacts from the proposed Project are anticipated to be minimal due to the provision of park and recreational space on- site and the limited number of residents that would be generated by the Project. Therefore, the P roject would not 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, and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
16b. Response: (Source: 2025 General Plan FEIR, Section 5.14, Recreation)
Less than Significant Impact. As described previously, the proposed P roject includes 61,909 square feet of park and recreational amenities. The impacts of development of the proposed recreational amenities are considered part of the impacts of the proposed Project as a whole and are analyzed throughout the various sections of this IS. For example , activities such
Environmental Initial Study 54 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the recreational components of this Project would result in impacts that are analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation sections.
In addition, operation of the Project would only result in the demand for parks and recreational facilities as articulated in the previous response, which would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities in the City. Therefore, the proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. As a result, impacts related to recreation would be less than significant .
17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project result in:
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
17a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 , City of Riverside Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide , City of Riverside 24-Hour Traffic Count)
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project may conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and this will be analyzed in the forthcoming EIR.
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
17b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025, City of Riverside Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide , City of Riverside 24-Hour Traffic Count)
Potentially Significant Impac t. The proposed Project may conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) and may result in a potentially significant and unavoidable impact this will be analyzed in the forthcoming EIR.
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
17c. Response: (Source: Project Site Plan, Project Description)
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project includes solely single-family residential uses, and does not include any incompatible uses, such as farm equipment. The P roject would also not increase any hazards related to a design feature.
Operation of the proposed residential uses would involve vehicles entering and exiting the site from Krameria Avenue and Lurin Avenue. The circulation layout prepared for the P roject meets emergency access requirements and provides fire truck accessibility throughout the Project site. Based on the City-compliant roadway design that would be required to construct the Project, motorists entering and exiting the P roject site would be able to do so comfortably, safely, and without undue congestion. As such, Project access and circulation would be adequate, and Project impacts related to hazardous design features would be less than significant.
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
17d. Response: (Source: California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual, Municipal Code, Fire Code and California Temporary Traffic Control Handbook, California Inter-Utility Coordinating Committee 2018)
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed construction activities, including equipment and supply staging and storage, would largely occur within the P roject site and would not restrict access of emergency vehicles to the P roject site or adjacent areas. During construction of sidewalks along the exterior of the P roject site and utility connections, one lane of Wood Road, Krameria Avenue, or Lurin Avenue could be temporarily closed to through traffic. However, one lane of these roadways would
Environmental Initial Study 55 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
remain open to ensure emergency access. Any temporary lane closures would be implemented consistent with the recommendations of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices to ensure that emergency vehicle access is maintained. Thus, impacts related to inadequate emergency access during construction activities would be less than significant.
Operation of the proposed P roject would also not result in an inadequate emergency access. Direct access to the P roject site would be provided from Krameria Avenue and Lurin Avenue, which are adjacent to the Project site. The Project is also required to design and construct internal access in conformance with the City Municipal Code. In addition, the Fire Department would review the development plans prior to approval to ensure adequate emergency access pursuant to the requirements in the Uniform Fire Code. As such, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or
18a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025)
Potentially Significant Impact. The City is in the process of conducting outreach pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) to determine if the proposed Project may affect tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 . Per Assembly Bill 52, the City of Riverside sent AB 52 notices to the following tribes though certified mail on June 3, 2021 :
Morongo Band of Mission Indians, San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indian, Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, Cahuilla Band of Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Responses were received from three tribes (the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians , the San Manuel Band of M ission Indians, and the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians) . The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians and the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians requested consultation. The City is currently conducting those consultations, and potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources will be analyzed in the forthcoming EIR.
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
18b. Response:
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project may affect tribal cultural resources, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and this potential impact will be analyzed in the forthcoming EIR.
19. UTILITIES AND SYSTEM SERVICES.
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication
Environmental Initial Study 56 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
19a. Response: (Source: General Plan EIR; Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan ( Appendix F); Preliminary Hydrology Study (Appendix G))
Less than Significant Impact. The Western Municipal Water District provides water and sewer infrastructure and services in the Project vicinity. The proposed P roject would install onsite 8 -inch water and sewer lines that would be located within each of the residential streets and serve each of the proposed residences. The new onsite water lines would connect to the existing 12-inch water line in Wood Road and the existing 8-inch and 24-inch lines Krameria Avenue. The new onsite sewer lines would connect to the existing 8-inch sewer line in Lurin Avenue.
In addition, t he Project would install an onsite stormwater drainage system that would convey runoff to catch basins that would convey flows to proposed two bioretention basins that would treat and infiltrate runoff. The remaining limited runoff would discharge runoff to the existing storm drain line within Wood Road. As detailed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the onsite drainage system has been designed to accommodate r unoff from the Project site, and the P roject would not result in the need for new or expanded offsite stormwater drainage infrastructure .
The Project would also connect to existing electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities that exist in the adjacent rights-of-way. Therefore, the P roject would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities that coul d cause environmental effects. Thus, impacts related to utility infrastructure would be less than significant.
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
19b. Response: (Source: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for Western Municipal Water District , June 20 21 (UWMP 20 21). Accessible: https://www.wmwd.com/DocumentCenter/View/5433/Western-Final-Adopted- UWMP_20210630?bidId= ))
Less Than Significant. The domestic and irrigation water for the proposed P roject would be supplied to the P roject by the Western Municipal Water District. As outlined in the District’s 20 20 UWMP, regional growth projections from SCAG’s Growth Forecast are based on the City’s General Plan Land Use designations and are used in the UWMP to identify future water demands. As described previously, the 3.783-acre northern portion of the site has a General Plan land use designation of MDR-Medium Density Residential that allows up to 8 units per acre with a Planned Residential Development (PRD). The southern 15.136-acre portion of the site has a General Plan land use designation of LDR-Low Density Residential that allows up to 6 units per acre with a PRD. The proposed Project would result in an overall density of 5.07 du/acre, which is consistent and within the General Plan land use densities for the P roject site; and is therefore within the UWMP water demand assumptions.
The 2020 UWMP details that the Western Municipal Water District service areas within the City of Riverside have historically used between 27,586 and 21,457 acre-feet annually of water. In 2020, the Western Municipal Water District provided the City service areas 22,969 acre-feet. The 2020 UWMP projects water demands from the City of 27,647 acre -feet in the year 2025, a demand of 31,101acre-feet in the year 2030, and a demand of 43,178 in the year 2045. Figure 10-6 of the 2020 UWMP shows the incremental increase in the projected number of single-family residences and the projected incremental increase in water demand. Because the Project is consistent with the General Plan land use, Specific Plan, and zoning designations the water demand from the Project site is included in these 2020 UWMP demand projections. In addition, the 2020 UWMP details (in Tables 11-2 through 11-4) that water supplies are projected to exceed the projected demand under normal, single dry, and multiple-dry year conditions through the year 2045. Thus, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the Project. Impacts related to water supplies would be less than significant.
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
Environmental Initial Study 57 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
19c. Response: (Source: Source: City of Riverside Capital Improvement Program and Rate Development Study, February 2014, 2025 General Plan FEIR – Section 5-16 Utilities and Service Systems; WRCRWA-Approved-Budget Fiscal-Year 2020-2021 (WRCRWA 20 20) Accessible: https://www.wmwd.com/DocumentCenter/View/5097/2020- 2022-Budget )
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would install new sewer lines to serve each residence that would connect to the existing 8-inch sewer line within Lurin Avenue which conveys wastewater flows from the Project to the Western Riverside Water Quality Control Plant.
Based on the averag e daily wastewater flow identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and Rate Development Study, the proposed single -family residential units would generate an average of 206 gallons per day (gpd) (CIP 2014).
Therefore, the proposed 96-residence Project would result in an average daily flow of 19,776 gpd.
Wastewater from the P roject site would be conveyed to the WRCWRA plant, which has a tertiary treatment capacity of 14 mgd and handled 7.76 mgd in 2020 (WRCRWA 20 20). Thus, the existing wastewater facilities have the capacity to accommodate the additional 19,776 gpd that would be generated from operation of the proposed Project, and impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant.
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
19d. Response: (Source: CalRecycle Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility, City of Riverside retrieved 2019, General Plan EIR, Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems)
Less than Significant Impact. A large portion of the solid waste from the City is currently disposed of at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill that is located 19.5 miles from the site and is permitted to accept 4,800 tons per day of solid waste through 2022. In June 2021 the Badland Sanitary Landfill averaged 3,128 tons per day and had a maximum disposal of 3,696 tons per day; thus, having an average daily additional capacity of 1,672 tons per day and a minimum additional capacity of 1,104 tons per day (CalRecycle 2021). In addition, solid waste from the P roject site is likely to be disposed of at the closest landfill to the Project site, which is the El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill that is located 18 miles southwest of the P roject site at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road in Corona. The El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill is permitted to accept 16,054 tons of solid waste per day through 2050. In March 2021, the landfill averaged 10,443 tons per day and had a maximum disposal of 12,566 tons per day; thus, having an average daily additional capacity of 5,611 tons per day and a minimum additional capacity of 3,488 tons per day (CalRecycle 2021).
Implementation of the proposed Project would result in additional solid waste generation from the proposed 96 single-family residences. The City’s General Plan EIR states that single-family residential uses generate 10 pounds per day of solid waste.
Hence, the 96 residences would generate approximately 9 60 pounds per day of solid waste that would be collected weekly from the City’s solid waste collection service. The pickup from the Project site would total 6,720 pounds (3.36 tons) weekly.
However, state regulations per AB 341 require diversion of 75 percent of solid waste from landfills. Thus, it is anticipated that solid waste landfill disposal from operation of the P roject would be reduced to approximately 1, 680 pounds (0.84 tons) per week. As described above, the Badland Sanitary Landfill has a minimum additional c apacity of 1,104 tons per day and the El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill has a minimum additional capacity of 3,488 tons per day. Therefore, has sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the P roject’s solid waste disposal needs . Impacts related to landfill capacity would be less than significant.
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Environmental Initial Study 58 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
19e. Response: (Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board 2002 Landfill Facility Compliance Study)
No Impact. The proposed P roject would comply with all regulations related to solid waste. All solid waste -generating activities within the City are subject to the requirements set forth in AB 341 that requires all development to divert 75 percent of solid waste pursuant to state regulations. Implementation of the proposed P roject would be consistent with all state regulations. The proposed Project must comply with the City’s waste d isposal 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, there would be no impacts related to solid waste statues.
20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project :
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
20a. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-7 – Fire Hazard Areas, CAL FIRE adopted Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps. Accessed: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5922/riverside.pdf)
No Impact. The General Plan Figure PS-7 shows that the Project site is not located near or adjacent to a fire hazard zone. The Project site is adjacent to roadways and residential areas. The Project site would be accessed from both Krameria Avenue and Lurin Avenue through the onsite streets to each residence. P ermitting of these roadways would provide adequate and safe circulation to, from, and through the Project site and would provide two routes for emergency responders to access the Project site. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, as verified by the City, potential impacts related to an emergency response or evacuation would be less than significant . Therefore, no impacts related to wildfires and impairment of an emergency response or evacuation plan would not occur from the proposed Project.
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
20b. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-7 – Fire Hazard Areas, CAL FIRE adopted Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps. Accessed: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5922/riverside.pdf)
No Impact. The Project site within an urbanizing residential area of the City of Riverside . The Project site is surrounded by roadways and residential areas. The Project site is not adjacent to any wildland areas, and as determined by the City’s General Plan CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone map, the Project site is not within a fire hazard zone. In addition, the Project site is flat and within a flat area. The site is adjacent to a roadway, a concrete flood control channel, commercial and residential development. There are no factors on or adjacent to the P roject site that would exacerbate wildfire risks. Thus, no impact related to other factors that would expose P roject occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire would occur from the Project.
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
20c. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS-7 – Fire Hazard Areas, CAL FIRE adopted Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps. Accessed: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5922/riverside.pdf)
No Impact. As described previously, the Project site is adjacent to roadways and residential developing areas and is not within a wildfire hazard zone. The Project does not include any infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risks. In addition, the Project would provide internal streets and fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers) that conform to the California Fire
Environmental Initial Study 59 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Code requirements, included as Municipal Code Chapter 16.32.20, as verified through the City’s permitting process. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risks with implementation of the proposed Project.
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
20d. Response: (Source: General Plan 2025 Figure PS -7 – Fire Hazard Areas, CAL FIRE adopted Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps. Accessed: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5922/riverside.pdf )
No Impact. As described previously, the P roject site is not within a wildfire hazard zone. In addition, the P roject site is flat and surrounded by flat areas. There are no slope or hillsides that would become unstable. In addition, the Project would install onsite drainage that would be conveyed to onsite bioretention basins and then an existing storm drain, which is consistent with the existing condition. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post- fire slope instability, or drainage changes with implementation of the proposed Project.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or an endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
21a. Response: (Source: Focused Cultural Resources Survey – Historic Resources Assessment (Appendix B.
Potentially Significant Impact. As described previously in Section 4, Biological Resources, the Project site is within the Western Riverside County MSHCP burrowing owl survey area, and a General Biological Assessment will be prepared, that will incldue a habitat assessment for burrowing owl and appropriate measures pursuant to the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The General Biological Assessment will also identify any other potential of the Project to degrade the quality of the habitat of a wildlife species, cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, or otherwise substantially impact a plant or animal community . Also, as described in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the project site is largely undeveloped and does not contain any historical resources. However, the site has the potential to include archeological resources . A Phase 1 Cultural Resources Assessment will be prepared to assess the potential of the site to include significant resources. Therefore, potentially significant impact s have been identified, th ese topics will be evaluated in the E IR, and appropriate mitigation measures will be included, as necessary.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
21b. Response: (Source: previous responses)
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project’s potential cumulatively considerable impacts will be analyzed in the forthcoming EIR.
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Environmental Initial Study 60 PR-2021-001053
ISSUES (AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION SOURCES):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
19c. Response: (Source: previous responses)
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project’s potential substantial adverse effects on human beings will be analyzed in the forthcoming EIR.
Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296 (1988); Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal.App.3d 1337 (1990).
Environmental Initial Study 61 PR-2021-001053