CEQA Consistency Memo — Riverside City Council, September 19, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblConstDustMitigation
WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed
0 15
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays

20.00 45.00
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays

5.00 22.00
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays

8.00 23.00
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays

18.00 23.00
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays
230.00
370.00
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays

18.00 44.00
tblFireplaces
NumberGas
141.35

0.00 tblFireplaces
NumberWood

89.95 0.00
tblGrading
AcresOfGrading

23.00 8.00
tblGrading
AcresOfGrading

33.00 7.50
tblGrading
MaterialExported

0.00 1,667.00
tblLandUse
LandUseSquareFeet
257,000.00
219,550.00
tblLandUse
LotAcreage

6.76 0.43
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

12.85 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

12.85 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 2 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2024

5.0431

49.3188

39.5038

0.0865

25.3637

2.2055

27.3305

13.4646

2.0384

15.2744

0.0000
8,443.596
8 8,443.596
8 2.2586

0.2111
8,534.644
9 2025

35.9984

15.9846

28.4264

0.0677

3.8014

0.6095

4.4109

1.0163

0.5763

1.5926

0.0000
6,703.680
9 6,703.680
9 0.6854

0.2104
6,783.521
0 2026

33.7428

1.2286

3.3287

7.5100e-
003

0.5701

0.0538

0.6239

0.1512

0.0536

0.2048

0.0000
740.5690
740.5690

0.0240

9.7600e-
003
744.0778
Maximum

35.9984

49.3188

39.5038

0.0865

25.3637

2.2055

27.3305

13.4646

2.0384

15.2744

0.0000
8,443.596
8 8,443.596
8 2.2586

0.2111
8,534.644
9 Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2024

5.0431

49.3188

39.5038

0.0865

10.2178

2.2055

12.1845

5.3385

2.0384

7.1483

0.0000
8,443.596
8 8,443.596
8 2.2586

0.2111
8,534.644
9 2025

35.9984

15.9846

28.4264

0.0677

3.8014

0.6095

4.4109

1.0163

0.5763

1.5926

0.0000
6,703.680
9 6,703.680
9 0.6854

0.2104
6,783.521
0 2026

33.7428

1.2286

3.3287

7.5100e-
003

0.5701

0.0538

0.6239

0.1512

0.0536

0.2048

0.0000
740.5690
740.5690

0.0240

9.7600e-
003
744.0778
Maximum

35.9984

49.3188

39.5038

0.0865

10.2178

2.2055

12.1845

5.3385

2.0384

7.1483

0.0000
8,443.596
8 8,443.596
8 2.2586

0.2111
8,534.644
9 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 3 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

50.94 0.00

46.80 55.54

0.00 47.60

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 4 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area

5.5566

0.2444

21.2256

1.1200e-
003

0.1177

0.0000

38.2700

0.0368

0.0000

39.1899
Energy

0.1098

0.9383

0.4013

5.9900e-
003

0.0758

0.0758
1,197.392
8 1,197.392
8 0.0230

0.0220
1,204.508
3 Mobile

4.1512

5.2103

40.3714

0.0961

10.4524

0.0720

10.5244

2.7881

0.0675

2.8556
9,786.779
0 9,786.779
0 0.4576

0.4424
9,930.045
7 Total

9.8176

6.3930

61.9983

0.1032

10.4524

0.2656

10.7179

2.7881

0.2610

3.0491

0.0000
11,022.44
17 11,022.44
17 0.5173

0.4643
11,173.74
39 Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area

5.5566

0.2444

21.2256

1.1200e-
003

0.1177

0.0000

38.2700

0.0368

0.0000

39.1899
Energy

0.1098

0.9383

0.4013

5.9900e-
003

0.0758

0.0758
1,197.392
8 1,197.392
8 0.0230

0.0220
1,204.508
3 Mobile

4.1512

5.2103

40.3714

0.0961

10.4524

0.0720

10.5244

2.7881

0.0675

2.8556
9,786.779
0 9,786.779
0 0.4576

0.4424
9,930.045
7 Total

9.8176

6.3930

61.9983

0.1032

10.4524

0.2656

10.7179

2.7881

0.2610

3.0491

0.0000
11,022.44
17 11,022.44
17 0.5173

0.4643
11,173.74
39 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 5 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 Demolition
Demolition
1/1/2024
3/1/2024
5 45
2 Site Preparation
Site Preparation
3/1/2024
4/1/2024
5 22
3 Grading
Grading
4/1/2024
5/1/2024
5 23
4 Paving
Paving
5/1/2024
6/1/2024
5 23
5 Building Construction
Building Construction
6/1/2024
11/1/2025
5 370
6 Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating
11/1/2025
1/1/2026
5 44
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws
1 8.00
81 0.73
Demolition
Excavators
3 8.00
158

0.38 Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
4 8.00
97 0.37
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 444,589; Residential Outdoor: 148,196; Non-Residential Indoor: 8,175; Non-Residential Outdoor: 2,725; Striped Parking Area: 9,960 (Architectural Coating
–
sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 7.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 8
Acres of Paving: 3.73
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 6 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Grading
Excavators
1 8.00
158

0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 8.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Cranes
1 7.00
231

0.29 Building Construction
Forklifts
3 8.00
89 0.20
Building Construction
Generator Sets
1 8.00
84 0.74
Building Construction
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 7.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Welders
1 8.00
46 0.45
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers
2 6.00
9 0.56
Paving
Pavers
1 8.00
130

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 6.00
132

0.36 Paving
Rollers
2 6.00
80 0.38
Paving
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
1 8.00
97 0.37
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors
1 6.00
78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition
6 15.00

0.00 113.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
7 18.00

0.00 208.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 257.00

56.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
8 20.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 51.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 7 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

0.5503

0.0000

0.5503

0.0833

0.0000

0.0833

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

2.2437

20.8781

19.7073

0.0388

0.9602

0.8922

0.8922
3,747.422
8 3,747.422
8 1.0485
3,773.634
5 Total

2.2437

20.8781

19.7073

0.0388

0.5503

0.9602

1.5105

0.0833

0.8922

0.9755
3,747.422
8 3,747.422
8 1.0485
3,773.634
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 8 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

5.4800e-
003

0.2515

0.0697

1.3600e-
003

0.0440

3.0100e-
003

0.0470

0.0121

2.8800e-
003

0.0149
144.9437
144.9437

2.2100e-
003

0.0228
151.8065
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0510

0.0301

0.5130

1.4300e-
003

0.1677

7.5000e-
004

0.1684

0.0445

6.9000e-
004

0.0452
144.3160
144.3160

3.1200e-
003

3.2700e-
003
145.3683
Total

0.0565

0.2816

0.5827

2.7900e-
003

0.2116

3.7600e-
003

0.2154

0.0565

3.5700e-
003

0.0601
289.2597
289.2597

5.3300e-
003

0.0261
297.1748
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

0.2146

0.0000

0.2146

0.0325

0.0000

0.0325

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

2.2437

20.8781

19.7073

0.0388

0.9602

0.8922

0.0000
3,747.422
8 3,747.422
8 1.0485
3,773.634
5 Total

2.2437

20.8781

19.7073

0.0388

0.2146

0.9602

1.1748

0.0325

0.8922

0.9247

0.0000
3,747.422
8 3,747.422
8 1.0485
3,773.634
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 9 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

5.4800e-
003

0.2515

0.0697

1.3600e-
003

0.0440

3.0100e-
003

0.0470

0.0121

2.8800e-
003

0.0149
144.9437
144.9437

2.2100e-
003

0.0228
151.8065
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0510

0.0301

0.5130

1.4300e-
003

0.1677

7.5000e-
004

0.1684

0.0445

6.9000e-
004

0.0452
144.3160
144.3160

3.1200e-
003

3.2700e-
003
145.3683
Total

0.0565

0.2816

0.5827

2.7900e-
003

0.2116

3.7600e-
003

0.2154

0.0565

3.5700e-
003

0.0601
289.2597
289.2597

5.3300e-
003

0.0261
297.1748
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

18.4384

0.0000

18.4384

9.9713

0.0000

9.9713

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

2.6609

27.1760

18.3356

0.0381

1.2294

1.1310

1.1310
3,688.010
0 3,688.010
0 1.1928
3,717.829
4 Total

2.6609

27.1760

18.3356

0.0381

18.4384

1.2294

19.6678

9.9713

1.1310

11.1023
3,688.010
0 3,688.010
0 1.1928
3,717.829
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 10 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0207

0.9468

0.2625

5.1100e-
003

0.1655

0.0113

0.1768

0.0454

0.0108

0.0562
545.7252
545.7252

8.3100e-
003

0.0860
571.5642
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0613

0.0362

0.6156

1.7100e-
003

0.2012

9.0000e-
004

0.2021

0.0534

8.3000e-
004

0.0542
173.1792
173.1792

3.7500e-
003

3.9200e-
003
174.4420
Total

0.0819

0.9830

0.8781

6.8200e-
003

0.3667

0.0122

0.3789

0.0987

0.0117

0.1104
718.9044
718.9044

0.0121

0.0899
746.0062
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

7.1910

0.0000

7.1910

3.8888

0.0000

3.8888

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

2.6609

27.1760

18.3356

0.0381

1.2294

1.1310

0.0000
3,688.010
0 3,688.010
0 1.1928
3,717.829
4 Total

2.6609

27.1760

18.3356

0.0381

7.1910

1.2294

8.4203

3.8888

1.1310

5.0198

0.0000
3,688.010
0 3,688.010
0 1.1928
3,717.829
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 11 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0207

0.9468

0.2625

5.1100e-
003

0.1655

0.0113

0.1768

0.0454

0.0108

0.0562
545.7252
545.7252

8.3100e-
003

0.0860
571.5642
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0613

0.0362

0.6156

1.7100e-
003

0.2012

9.0000e-
004

0.2021

0.0534

8.3000e-
004

0.0542
173.1792
173.1792

3.7500e-
003

3.9200e-
003
174.4420
Total

0.0819

0.9830

0.8781

6.8200e-
003

0.3667

0.0122

0.3789

0.0987

0.0117

0.1104
718.9044
718.9044

0.0121

0.0899
746.0062
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

6.3910

0.0000

6.3910

3.3501

0.0000

3.3501

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

1.6617

17.0310

14.7594

0.0297

0.7244

0.6665

0.6665
2,873.054
1 2,873.054
1 0.9292
2,896.284
2 Total

1.6617

17.0310

14.7594

0.0297

6.3910

0.7244

7.1154

3.3501

0.6665

4.0165
2,873.054
1 2,873.054
1 0.9292
2,896.284
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 12 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Grading - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0510

0.0301

0.5130

1.4300e-
003

0.1677

7.5000e-
004

0.1684

0.0445

6.9000e-
004

0.0452
144.3160
144.3160

3.1200e-
003

3.2700e-
003
145.3683
Total

0.0510

0.0301

0.5130

1.4300e-
003

0.1677

7.5000e-
004

0.1684

0.0445

6.9000e-
004

0.0452
144.3160
144.3160

3.1200e-
003

3.2700e-
003
145.3683
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

2.4925

0.0000

2.4925

1.3065

0.0000

1.3065

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

1.6617

17.0310

14.7594

0.0297

0.7244

0.6665

0.0000
2,873.054
1 2,873.054
1 0.9292
2,896.284
2 Total

1.6617

17.0310

14.7594

0.0297

2.4925

0.7244

3.2169

1.3065

0.6665

1.9730

0.0000
2,873.054
1 2,873.054
1 0.9292
2,896.284
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 13 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Grading - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0510

0.0301

0.5130

1.4300e-
003

0.1677

7.5000e-
004

0.1684

0.0445

6.9000e-
004

0.0452
144.3160
144.3160

3.1200e-
003

3.2700e-
003
145.3683
Total

0.0510

0.0301

0.5130

1.4300e-
003

0.1677

7.5000e-
004

0.1684

0.0445

6.9000e-
004

0.0452
144.3160
144.3160

3.1200e-
003

3.2700e-
003
145.3683
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

0.8814

8.2730

12.2210

0.0189

0.3987

0.3685

0.3685
1,805.620
5 1,805.620
5 0.5673
1,819.803
9 Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.8814

8.2730

12.2210

0.0189

0.3987

0.3685

0.3685
1,805.620
5 1,805.620
5 0.5673
1,819.803
9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 14 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0681

0.0402

0.6840

1.9000e-
003

0.2236

1.0000e-
003

0.2246

0.0593

9.2000e-
004

0.0602
192.4214
192.4214

4.1600e-
003

4.3600e-
003
193.8244
Total

0.0681

0.0402

0.6840

1.9000e-
003

0.2236

1.0000e-
003

0.2246

0.0593

9.2000e-
004

0.0602
192.4214
192.4214

4.1600e-
003

4.3600e-
003
193.8244
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

0.8814

8.2730

12.2210

0.0189

0.3987

0.3685

0.0000
1,805.620
5 1,805.620
5 0.5673
1,819.803
9 Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.8814

8.2730

12.2210

0.0189

0.3987

0.3685

0.0000
1,805.620
5 1,805.620
5 0.5673
1,819.803
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 15 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0681

0.0402

0.6840

1.9000e-
003

0.2236

1.0000e-
003

0.2246

0.0593

9.2000e-
004

0.0602
192.4214
192.4214

4.1600e-
003

4.3600e-
003
193.8244
Total

0.0681

0.0402

0.6840

1.9000e-
003

0.2236

1.0000e-
003

0.2246

0.0593

9.2000e-
004

0.0602
192.4214
192.4214

4.1600e-
003

4.3600e-
003
193.8244
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Building Construction - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.4716

13.4438

16.1668

0.0270

0.6133

0.5769

0.5769
2,555.698
9 2,555.698
9 0.6044
2,570.807
7 Total

1.4716

13.4438

16.1668

0.0270

0.6133

0.5769

0.5769
2,555.698
9 2,555.698
9 0.6044
2,570.807
7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 16 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Building Construction - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0621

1.8297

0.7447

9.6300e-
003

0.3587

0.0158

0.3745

0.1033

0.0151

0.1184
1,021.527
2 1,021.527
2 0.0110

0.1507
1,066.716
7 Worker

0.8745

0.5165

8.7896

0.0245

2.8727

0.0128

2.8855

0.7618

0.0118

0.7736
2,472.614
5 2,472.614
5 0.0535

0.0560
2,490.643
8 Total

0.9366

2.3462

9.5343

0.0341

3.2313

0.0287

3.2600

0.8651

0.0269

0.8921
3,494.141
7 3,494.141
7 0.0644

0.2067
3,557.360
5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.4716

13.4438

16.1668

0.0270

0.6133

0.5769

0.0000
2,555.698
9 2,555.698
9 0.6044
2,570.807
7 Total

1.4716

13.4438

16.1668

0.0270

0.6133

0.5769

0.0000
2,555.698
9 2,555.698
9 0.6044
2,570.807
7 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 17 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Building Construction - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0621

1.8297

0.7447

9.6300e-
003

0.3587

0.0158

0.3745

0.1033

0.0151

0.1184
1,021.527
2 1,021.527
2 0.0110

0.1507
1,066.716
7 Worker

0.8745

0.5165

8.7896

0.0245

2.8727

0.0128

2.8855

0.7618

0.0118

0.7736
2,472.614
5 2,472.614
5 0.0535

0.0560
2,490.643
8 Total

0.9366

2.3462

9.5343

0.0341

3.2313

0.0287

3.2600

0.8651

0.0269

0.8921
3,494.141
7 3,494.141
7 0.0644

0.2067
3,557.360
5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Building Construction - 2025
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.3674

12.4697

16.0847

0.0270

0.5276

0.4963

0.4963
2,556.474
4 2,556.474
4 0.6010
2,571.498
1 Total

1.3674

12.4697

16.0847

0.0270

0.5276

0.4963

0.4963
2,556.474
4 2,556.474
4 0.6010
2,571.498
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 18 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Building Construction - 2025
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0613

1.8147

0.7363

9.4600e-
003

0.3587

0.0158

0.3745

0.1033

0.0152

0.1184
1,003.520
5 1,003.520
5 0.0114

0.1478
1,047.840
2 Worker

0.8170

0.4629

8.1742

0.0236

2.8727

0.0122

2.8848

0.7618

0.0112

0.7730
2,388.296
0 2,388.296
0 0.0482

0.0523
2,405.078
5 Total

0.8784

2.2776

8.9105

0.0331

3.2313

0.0280

3.2593

0.8651

0.0263

0.8915
3,391.816
5 3,391.816
5 0.0596

0.2000
3,452.918
7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.3674

12.4697

16.0847

0.0270

0.5276

0.4963

0.0000
2,556.474
4 2,556.474
4 0.6010
2,571.498
1 Total

1.3674

12.4697

16.0847

0.0270

0.5276

0.4963

0.0000
2,556.474
4 2,556.474
4 0.6010
2,571.498
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 19 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Building Construction - 2025
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0613

1.8147

0.7363

9.4600e-
003

0.3587

0.0158

0.3745

0.1033

0.0152

0.1184
1,003.520
5 1,003.520
5 0.0114

0.1478
1,047.840
2 Worker

0.8170

0.4629

8.1742

0.0236

2.8727

0.0122

2.8848

0.7618

0.0112

0.7730
2,388.296
0 2,388.296
0 0.0482

0.0523
2,405.078
5 Total

0.8784

2.2776

8.9105

0.0331

3.2313

0.0280

3.2593

0.8651

0.0263

0.8915
3,391.816
5 3,391.816
5 0.0596

0.2000
3,452.918
7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating

33.4197

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1709

1.1455

1.8091

2.9700e-
003

0.0515

0.0515
281.4481
281.4481

0.0154
281.8319
Total

33.5905

1.1455

1.8091

2.9700e-
003

0.0515

0.0515
281.4481
281.4481

0.0154
281.8319
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 20 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.1621

0.0919

1.6221

4.6900e-
003

0.5701

2.4100e-
003

0.5725

0.1512

2.2200e-
003

0.1534
473.9420
473.9420

9.5700e-
003

0.0104
477.2724
Total

0.1621

0.0919

1.6221

4.6900e-
003

0.5701

2.4100e-
003

0.5725

0.1512

2.2200e-
003

0.1534
473.9420
473.9420

9.5700e-
003

0.0104
477.2724
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating

33.4197

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1709

1.1455

1.8091

2.9700e-
003

0.0515

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0154
281.8319
Total

33.5905

1.1455

1.8091

2.9700e-
003

0.0515

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0154
281.8319
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 21 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.1621

0.0919

1.6221

4.6900e-
003

0.5701

2.4100e-
003

0.5725

0.1512

2.2200e-
003

0.1534
473.9420
473.9420

9.5700e-
003

0.0104
477.2724
Total

0.1621

0.0919

1.6221

4.6900e-
003

0.5701

2.4100e-
003

0.5725

0.1512

2.2200e-
003

0.1534
473.9420
473.9420

9.5700e-
003

0.0104
477.2724
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating

33.4197

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1709

1.1455

1.8091

2.9700e-
003

0.0515

0.0515
281.4481
281.4481

0.0154
281.8319
Total

33.5905

1.1455

1.8091

2.9700e-
003

0.0515

0.0515
281.4481
281.4481

0.0154
281.8319
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 22 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.1522

0.0831

1.5196

4.5400e-
003

0.5701

2.2800e-
003

0.5723

0.1512

2.1000e-
003

0.1533
459.1209
459.1209

8.6700e-
003

9.7600e-
003
462.2460
Total

0.1522

0.0831

1.5196

4.5400e-
003

0.5701

2.2800e-
003

0.5723

0.1512

2.1000e-
003

0.1533
459.1209
459.1209

8.6700e-
003

9.7600e-
003
462.2460
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating

33.4197

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1709

1.1455

1.8091

2.9700e-
003

0.0515

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0154
281.8319
Total

33.5905

1.1455

1.8091

2.9700e-
003

0.0515

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0154
281.8319
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 23 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.1522

0.0831

1.5196

4.5400e-
003

0.5701

2.2800e-
003

0.5723

0.1512

2.1000e-
003

0.1533
459.1209
459.1209

8.6700e-
003

9.7600e-
003
462.2460
Total

0.1522

0.0831

1.5196

4.5400e-
003

0.5701

2.2800e-
003

0.5723

0.1512

2.1000e-
003

0.1533
459.1209
459.1209

8.6700e-
003

9.7600e-
003
462.2460
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 24 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Mitigated

4.1512

5.2103

40.3714

0.0961

10.4524

0.0720

10.5244

2.7881

0.0675

2.8556
9,786.779
0 9,786.779
0 0.4576

0.4424
9,930.045
7 Unmitigated

4.1512

5.2103

40.3714

0.0961

10.4524

0.0720

10.5244

2.7881

0.0675

2.8556
9,786.779
0 9,786.779
0 0.4576

0.4424
9,930.045
7 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise
1,398.08
1,261.87
1051.13
4,541,590
4,541,590
Enclosed Parking Structure

0.00 0.00

0.00 General Office Building

53.08 12.04

3.82 129,445
129,445
Total
1,451.16
1,273.91
1,054.95
4,671,035
4,671,035
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
H-W or C-W
H-S or C-C
H-O or C-NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass-by
Apartments Mid Rise

14.70 5.90

8.70 40.20

19.20 40.60
86 11
3 Enclosed Parking Structure

16.60 8.40

6.90 0.00

0.00 0.00
0 0
0 General Office Building

16.60 8.40

6.90 33.00

48.00 19.00
77 19
4 4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
Apartments Mid Rise

0.542916

0.056689

0.174450

0.134041

0.024680

0.006960

0.011589

0.018600

0.000608

0.000298

0.023389

0.001091

0.004689
Enclosed Parking Structure

0.542916

0.056689

0.174450

0.134041

0.024680

0.006960

0.011589

0.018600

0.000608

0.000298

0.023389

0.001091

0.004689
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 25 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

General Office Building

0.542916

0.056689

0.174450

0.134041

0.024680

0.006960

0.011589

0.018600

0.000608

0.000298

0.023389

0.001091

0.004689

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.1098

0.9383

0.4013

5.9900e-
003

0.0758

0.0758
1,197.392
8 1,197.392
8 0.0230

0.0220
1,204.508
3 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.1098

0.9383

0.4013

5.9900e-
003

0.0758

0.0758
1,197.392
8 1,197.392
8 0.0230

0.0220
1,204.508
3 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 26 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
lb/day
lb/day
Apartments Mid
Rise
10126.6

0.1092

0.9332

0.3971

5.9600e-
003

0.0755

0.0755
1,191.367
5 1,191.367
5 0.0228

0.0218
1,198.447
2 Enclosed Parking
Structure
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
General Office
Building

51.2151

5.5000e-
004

5.0200e-
003

4.2200e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.8000e-
004

6.0253

1.2000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

6.0611
Total

0.1098

0.9383

0.4013

5.9900e-
003

0.0758

0.0758
1,197.392
8 1,197.392
8 0.0230

0.0220
1,204.508
3 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 27 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior
No Hearths Installed

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

10.1266

0.1092

0.9332

0.3971

5.9600e-
003

0.0755

0.0755
1,191.367
5 1,191.367
5 0.0228

0.0218
1,198.447
2 Enclosed Parking
Structure
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
General Office
Building

0.0512151

5.5000e-
004

5.0200e-
003

4.2200e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.8000e-
004

6.0253

1.2000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

6.0611
Total

0.1098

0.9383

0.4013

5.9900e-
003

0.0758

0.0758
1,197.392
8 1,197.392
8 0.0230

0.0220
1,204.508
3 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 28 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Mitigated

5.5566

0.2444

21.2256

1.1200e-
003

0.1177

0.0000

38.2700

0.0368

0.0000

39.1899
Unmitigated

5.5566

0.2444

21.2256

1.1200e-
003

0.1177

0.0000

38.2700

0.0368

0.0000

39.1899

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
SubCategory
lb/day
lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.4029

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

4.5138

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

0.0000

0.0000
Landscaping

0.6400

0.2444

21.2256

1.1200e-
003

0.1177

38.2700

0.0368

39.1899
Total

5.5566

0.2444

21.2256

1.1200e-
003

0.1177

0.0000

38.2700

0.0368

0.0000

39.1899
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 29 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.4029

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

4.5138

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

0.0000

0.0000
Landscaping

0.6400

0.2444

21.2256

1.1200e-
003

0.1177

38.2700

0.0368

39.1899
Total

5.5566

0.2444

21.2256

1.1200e-
003

0.1177

0.0000

38.2700

0.0368

0.0000

39.1899
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 30 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Days/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Hours/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type
Number
Heat Input/Day
Heat Input/Year
Boiler Rating
Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type
Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:41 PM

Page 31 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

1575 University Avenue
Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Likely change Commercial Land use type, lot acerage and square feet based on provided gross information.

Construction Phase - Baesed on construction schedule
Trips and VMT - 2000 Market Street, Riverside CA 92501
Demolition - Based on construction questionnaire
Grading - All Demolished hardscape reused onsite (45,000 sf of pavement material * 12 inches deep, converted to yards = 1667 cy) Woodstoves - Woodstoves and fireplaces would not be present in the mixed-use dwelling units Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
General Office Building

5.45 1000sqft

0.13 5,450.00
0 Enclosed Parking Structure
415.00
Space

3.73 166,000.00
0 Apartments Mid Rise
257.00
Dwelling Unit

0.43 219,550.00
735

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)

2.6 28

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Southern California Edison
2026
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
390.98

0.033
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 1 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblConstDustMitigation
WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed
0 15
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays

20.00 45.00
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays

5.00 22.00
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays

8.00 23.00
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays

18.00 23.00
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays
230.00
370.00
tblConstructionPhase
NumDays

18.00 44.00
tblFireplaces
NumberGas
141.35

0.00 tblFireplaces
NumberWood

89.95 0.00
tblGrading
AcresOfGrading

23.00 8.00
tblGrading
AcresOfGrading

33.00 7.50
tblGrading
MaterialExported

0.00 1,667.00
tblLandUse
LandUseSquareFeet
257,000.00
219,550.00
tblLandUse
LotAcreage

6.76 0.43
tblWoodstoves
NumberCatalytic

12.85 0.00
tblWoodstoves
NumberNoncatalytic

12.85 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 2 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.0342

49.3927

39.2990

0.0862

25.3637

2.2055

27.3305

13.4646

2.0385

15.2744

0.0000
8,414.921
5 8,414.921
5 2.2585

0.2130
8,506.067
5 2025

35.9378

16.1151

26.6241

0.0651

3.8014

0.6095

4.4109

1.0163

0.5764

1.5927

0.0000
6,438.609
1 6,438.609
1 0.6853

0.2123
6,519.020
0 2026

33.7345

1.2317

3.0464

7.0900e-
003

0.5701

0.0538

0.6239

0.1512

0.0536

0.2048

0.0000
697.7319
697.7319

0.0241

9.9800e-
003
701.3079
Maximum

35.9378

49.3927

39.2990

0.0862

25.3637

2.2055

27.3305

13.4646

2.0385

15.2744

0.0000
8,414.921
5 8,414.921
5 2.2585

0.2130
8,506.067
5 Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2024

5.0342

49.3927

39.2990

0.0862

10.2178

2.2055

12.1846

5.3385

2.0385

7.1484

0.0000
8,414.921
5 8,414.921
5 2.2585

0.2130
8,506.067
5 2025

35.9378

16.1151

26.6241

0.0651

3.8014

0.6095

4.4109

1.0163

0.5764

1.5927

0.0000
6,438.609
1 6,438.609
1 0.6853

0.2123
6,519.020
0 2026

33.7345

1.2317

3.0464

7.0900e-
003

0.5701

0.0538

0.6239

0.1512

0.0536

0.2048

0.0000
697.7319
697.7319

0.0241

9.9800e-
003
701.3079
Maximum

35.9378

49.3927

39.2990

0.0862

10.2178

2.2055

12.1846

5.3385

2.0385

7.1484

0.0000
8,414.921
5 8,414.921
5 2.2585

0.2130
8,506.067
5 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 3 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

50.94 0.00

46.80 55.54

0.00 47.60

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 4 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area

5.5566

0.2444

21.2256

1.1200e-
003

0.1177

0.0000

38.2700

0.0368

0.0000

39.1899
Energy

0.1098

0.9383

0.4013

5.9900e-
003

0.0758

0.0758
1,197.392
8 1,197.392
8 0.0230

0.0220
1,204.508
3 Mobile

3.5299

5.5353

35.7941

0.0892

10.4524

0.0721

10.5245

2.7881

0.0676

2.8556
9,093.912
8 9,093.912
8 0.4676

0.4516
9,240.172
1 Total

9.1962

6.7180

57.4210

0.0963

10.4524

0.2656

10.7180

2.7881

0.2611

3.0492

0.0000
10,329.57
56 10,329.57
56 0.5273

0.4735
10,483.87
04 Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area

5.5566

0.2444

21.2256

1.1200e-
003

0.1177

0.0000

38.2700

0.0368

0.0000

39.1899
Energy

0.1098

0.9383

0.4013

5.9900e-
003

0.0758

0.0758
1,197.392
8 1,197.392
8 0.0230

0.0220
1,204.508
3 Mobile

3.5299

5.5353

35.7941

0.0892

10.4524

0.0721

10.5245

2.7881

0.0676

2.8556
9,093.912
8 9,093.912
8 0.4676

0.4516
9,240.172
1 Total

9.1962

6.7180

57.4210

0.0963

10.4524

0.2656

10.7180

2.7881

0.2611

3.0492

0.0000
10,329.57
56 10,329.57
56 0.5273

0.4735
10,483.87
04 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 5 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.38 Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers
2 8.00
247

0.40 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
3 8.00
247

0.00 0.00

Page 6 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Grading
Excavators
1 8.00
158

0.38 Grading
Graders
1 8.00
187

0.41 Grading
Rubber Tired Dozers
1 8.00
247

0.40 Grading
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 8.00
97 0.37
Building Construction
Cranes
1 7.00
231

0.42 Paving
Paving Equipment
2 6.00
132

0.00 113.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Site Preparation
7 18.00

0.00 208.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Grading
6 15.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Building Construction
9 257.00

56.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Paving
8 20.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
Architectural Coating
1 51.00

0.00 0.00

14.70 6.90

20.00 LD_Mix
HDT_Mix
HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 7 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

0.5503

0.0000

0.5503

0.0833

0.0000

0.0833

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

2.2437

20.8781

19.7073

0.0388

0.9602

0.8922

0.8922
3,747.422
8 3,747.422
8 1.0485
3,773.634
5 Total

2.2437

20.8781

19.7073

0.0388

0.5503

0.9602

1.5105

0.0833

0.8922

0.9755
3,747.422
8 3,747.422
8 1.0485
3,773.634
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 8 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

5.0400e-
003

0.2665

0.0712

1.3600e-
003

0.0440

3.0100e-
003

0.0470

0.0121

2.8800e-
003

0.0149
145.1712
145.1712

2.1800e-
003

0.0229
152.0442
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0480

0.0313

0.4168

1.2900e-
003

0.1677

7.5000e-
004

0.1684

0.0445

6.9000e-
004

0.0452
130.7890
130.7890

3.1200e-
003

3.3500e-
003
131.8638
Total

0.0530

0.2977

0.4879

2.6500e-
003

0.2116

3.7600e-
003

0.2154

0.0565

3.5700e-
003

0.0601
275.9602
275.9602

5.3000e-
003

0.0262
283.9079
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

0.2146

0.0000

0.2146

0.0325

0.0000

0.0325

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

2.2437

20.8781

19.7073

0.0388

0.9602

0.8922

0.0000
3,747.422
8 3,747.422
8 1.0485
3,773.634
5 Total

2.2437

20.8781

19.7073

0.0388

0.2146

0.9602

1.1748

0.0325

0.8922

0.9247

0.0000
3,747.422
8 3,747.422
8 1.0485
3,773.634
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 9 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

5.0400e-
003

0.2665

0.0712

1.3600e-
003

0.0440

3.0100e-
003

0.0470

0.0121

2.8800e-
003

0.0149
145.1712
145.1712

2.1800e-
003

0.0229
152.0442
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0480

0.0313

0.4168

1.2900e-
003

0.1677

7.5000e-
004

0.1684

0.0445

6.9000e-
004

0.0452
130.7890
130.7890

3.1200e-
003

3.3500e-
003
131.8638
Total

0.0530

0.2977

0.4879

2.6500e-
003

0.2116

3.7600e-
003

0.2154

0.0565

3.5700e-
003

0.0601
275.9602
275.9602

5.3000e-
003

0.0262
283.9079
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

18.4384

0.0000

18.4384

9.9713

0.0000

9.9713

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

2.6609

27.1760

18.3356

0.0381

1.2294

1.1310

1.1310
3,688.010
0 3,688.010
0 1.1928
3,717.829
4 Total

2.6609

27.1760

18.3356

0.0381

18.4384

1.2294

19.6678

9.9713

1.1310

11.1023
3,688.010
0 3,688.010
0 1.1928
3,717.829
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 10 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0190

1.0033

0.2680

5.1100e-
003

0.1655

0.0113

0.1768

0.0454

0.0109

0.0562
546.5818
546.5818

8.2300e-
003

0.0862
572.4592
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0576

0.0375

0.5001

1.5500e-
003

0.2012

9.0000e-
004

0.2021

0.0534

8.3000e-
004

0.0542
156.9468
156.9468

3.7400e-
003

4.0100e-
003
158.2365
Total

0.0766

1.0408

0.7681

6.6600e-
003

0.3667

0.0122

0.3789

0.0987

0.0117

0.1104
703.5286
703.5286

0.0120

0.0902
730.6957
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

7.1910

0.0000

7.1910

3.8888

0.0000

3.8888

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

2.6609

27.1760

18.3356

0.0381

1.2294

1.1310

0.0000
3,688.010
0 3,688.010
0 1.1928
3,717.829
4 Total

2.6609

27.1760

18.3356

0.0381

7.1910

1.2294

8.4203

3.8888

1.1310

5.0198

0.0000
3,688.010
0 3,688.010
0 1.1928
3,717.829
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 11 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0190

1.0033

0.2680

5.1100e-
003

0.1655

0.0113

0.1768

0.0454

0.0109

0.0562
546.5818
546.5818

8.2300e-
003

0.0862
572.4592
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0576

0.0375

0.5001

1.5500e-
003

0.2012

9.0000e-
004

0.2021

0.0534

8.3000e-
004

0.0542
156.9468
156.9468

3.7400e-
003

4.0100e-
003
158.2365
Total

0.0766

1.0408

0.7681

6.6600e-
003

0.3667

0.0122

0.3789

0.0987

0.0117

0.1104
703.5286
703.5286

0.0120

0.0902
730.6957
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

6.3910

0.0000

6.3910

3.3501

0.0000

3.3501

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

1.6617

17.0310

14.7594

0.0297

0.7244

0.6665

0.6665
2,873.054
1 2,873.054
1 0.9292
2,896.284
2 Total

1.6617

17.0310

14.7594

0.0297

6.3910

0.7244

7.1154

3.3501

0.6665

4.0165
2,873.054
1 2,873.054
1 0.9292
2,896.284
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 12 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Grading - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0480

0.0313

0.4168

1.2900e-
003

0.1677

7.5000e-
004

0.1684

0.0445

6.9000e-
004

0.0452
130.7890
130.7890

3.1200e-
003

3.3500e-
003
131.8638
Total

0.0480

0.0313

0.4168

1.2900e-
003

0.1677

7.5000e-
004

0.1684

0.0445

6.9000e-
004

0.0452
130.7890
130.7890

3.1200e-
003

3.3500e-
003
131.8638
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust

2.4925

0.0000

2.4925

1.3065

0.0000

1.3065

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

1.6617

17.0310

14.7594

0.0297

0.7244

0.6665

0.0000
2,873.054
1 2,873.054
1 0.9292
2,896.284
2 Total

1.6617

17.0310

14.7594

0.0297

2.4925

0.7244

3.2169

1.3065

0.6665

1.9730

0.0000
2,873.054
1 2,873.054
1 0.9292
2,896.284
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 13 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.4 Grading - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0480

0.0313

0.4168

1.2900e-
003

0.1677

7.5000e-
004

0.1684

0.0445

6.9000e-
004

0.0452
130.7890
130.7890

3.1200e-
003

3.3500e-
003
131.8638
Total

0.0480

0.0313

0.4168

1.2900e-
003

0.1677

7.5000e-
004

0.1684

0.0445

6.9000e-
004

0.0452
130.7890
130.7890

3.1200e-
003

3.3500e-
003
131.8638
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

0.8814

8.2730

12.2210

0.0189

0.3987

0.3685

0.3685
1,805.620
5 1,805.620
5 0.5673
1,819.803
9 Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.8814

8.2730

12.2210

0.0189

0.3987

0.3685

0.3685
1,805.620
5 1,805.620
5 0.5673
1,819.803
9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 14 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0640

0.0417

0.5557

1.7300e-
003

0.2236

1.0000e-
003

0.2246

0.0593

9.2000e-
004

0.0602
174.3853
174.3853

4.1600e-
003

4.4600e-
003
175.8183
Total

0.0640

0.0417

0.5557

1.7300e-
003

0.2236

1.0000e-
003

0.2246

0.0593

9.2000e-
004

0.0602
174.3853
174.3853

4.1600e-
003

4.4600e-
003
175.8183
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

0.8814

8.2730

12.2210

0.0189

0.3987

0.3685

0.0000
1,805.620
5 1,805.620
5 0.5673
1,819.803
9 Paving

0.0000

0.0000
Total

0.8814

8.2730

12.2210

0.0189

0.3987

0.3685

0.0000
1,805.620
5 1,805.620
5 0.5673
1,819.803
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 15 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.5 Paving - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.0640

0.0417

0.5557

1.7300e-
003

0.2236

1.0000e-
003

0.2246

0.0593

9.2000e-
004

0.0602
174.3853
174.3853

4.1600e-
003

4.4600e-
003
175.8183
Total

0.0640

0.0417

0.5557

1.7300e-
003

0.2236

1.0000e-
003

0.2246

0.0593

9.2000e-
004

0.0602
174.3853
174.3853

4.1600e-
003

4.4600e-
003
175.8183
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

1.4716

13.4438

16.1668

0.0270

0.6133

0.5769

0.5769
2,555.698
9 2,555.698
9 0.6044
2,570.807
7 Total

1.4716

13.4438

16.1668

0.0270

0.6133

0.5769

0.5769
2,555.698
9 2,555.698
9 0.6044
2,570.807
7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 16 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Building Construction - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0575

1.9406

0.7700

9.6500e-
003

0.3587

0.0159

0.3746

0.1033

0.0152

0.1185
1,024.080
2 1,024.080
2 0.0107

0.1512
1,069.413
0 Worker

0.8222

0.5356

7.1407

0.0222

2.8727

0.0128

2.8855

0.7618

0.0118

0.7736
2,240.851
4 2,240.851
4 0.0534

0.0573
2,259.265
6 Total

0.8796

2.4762

7.9107

0.0318

3.2313

0.0287

3.2600

0.8651

0.0270

0.8921
3,264.931
5 3,264.931
5 0.0641

0.2085
3,328.678
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.4716

13.4438

16.1668

0.0270

0.6133

0.5769

0.0000
2,555.698
9 2,555.698
9 0.6044
2,570.807
7 Total

1.4716

13.4438

16.1668

0.0270

0.6133

0.5769

0.0000
2,555.698
9 2,555.698
9 0.6044
2,570.807
7 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 17 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Building Construction - 2024
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0575

1.9406

0.7700

9.6500e-
003

0.3587

0.0159

0.3746

0.1033

0.0152

0.1185
1,024.080
2 1,024.080
2 0.0107

0.1512
1,069.413
0 Worker

0.8222

0.5356

7.1407

0.0222

2.8727

0.0128

2.8855

0.7618

0.0118

0.7736
2,240.851
4 2,240.851
4 0.0534

0.0573
2,259.265
6 Total

0.8796

2.4762

7.9107

0.0318

3.2313

0.0287

3.2600

0.8651

0.0270

0.8921
3,264.931
5 3,264.931
5 0.0641

0.2085
3,328.678
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

1.3674

12.4697

16.0847

0.0270

0.5276

0.4963

0.4963
2,556.474
4 2,556.474
4 0.6010
2,571.498
1 Total

1.3674

12.4697

16.0847

0.0270

0.5276

0.4963

0.4963
2,556.474
4 2,556.474
4 0.6010
2,571.498
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 18 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Building Construction - 2025
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0567

1.9247

0.7615

9.4800e-
003

0.3587

0.0159

0.3746

0.1033

0.0152

0.1185
1,006.042
9 1,006.042
9 0.0112

0.1483
1,050.502
6 Worker

0.7703

0.4800

6.6492

0.0214

2.8727

0.0122

2.8848

0.7618

0.0112

0.7730
2,165.011
2 2,165.011
2 0.0483

0.0535
2,182.153
2 Total

0.8270

2.4046

7.4108

0.0309

3.2313

0.0281

3.2594

0.8651

0.0264

0.8915
3,171.054
1 3,171.054
1 0.0594

0.2017
3,232.655
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off-Road

1.3674

12.4697

16.0847

0.0270

0.5276

0.4963

0.0000
2,556.474
4 2,556.474
4 0.6010
2,571.498
1 Total

1.3674

12.4697

16.0847

0.0270

0.5276

0.4963

0.0000
2,556.474
4 2,556.474
4 0.6010
2,571.498
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 19 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.6 Building Construction - 2025
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0567

1.9247

0.7615

9.4800e-
003

0.3587

0.0159

0.3746

0.1033

0.0152

0.1185
1,006.042
9 1,006.042
9 0.0112

0.1483
1,050.502
6 Worker

0.7703

0.4800

6.6492

0.0214

2.8727

0.0122

2.8848

0.7618

0.0112

0.7730
2,165.011
2 2,165.011
2 0.0483

0.0535
2,182.153
2 Total

0.8270

2.4046

7.4108

0.0309

3.2313

0.0281

3.2594

0.8651

0.0264

0.8915
3,171.054
1 3,171.054
1 0.0594

0.2017
3,232.655
8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

33.4197

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1709

1.1455

1.8091

2.9700e-
003

0.0515

0.0515
281.4481
281.4481

0.0154
281.8319
Total

33.5905

1.1455

1.8091

2.9700e-
003

0.0515

0.0515
281.4481
281.4481

0.0154
281.8319
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 20 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.1529

0.0953

1.3195

4.2500e-
003

0.5701

2.4100e-
003

0.5725

0.1512

2.2200e-
003

0.1534
429.6326
429.6326

9.5800e-
003

0.0106
433.0343
Total

0.1529

0.0953

1.3195

4.2500e-
003

0.5701

2.4100e-
003

0.5725

0.1512

2.2200e-
003

0.1534
429.6326
429.6326

9.5800e-
003

0.0106
433.0343
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating

33.4197

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1709

1.1455

1.8091

2.9700e-
003

0.0515

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0154
281.8319
Total

33.5905

1.1455

1.8091

2.9700e-
003

0.0515

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0154
281.8319
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 21 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.1529

0.0953

1.3195

4.2500e-
003

0.5701

2.4100e-
003

0.5725

0.1512

2.2200e-
003

0.1534
429.6326
429.6326

9.5800e-
003

0.0106
433.0343
Total

0.1529

0.0953

1.3195

4.2500e-
003

0.5701

2.4100e-
003

0.5725

0.1512

2.2200e-
003

0.1534
429.6326
429.6326

9.5800e-
003

0.0106
433.0343
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

33.4197

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1709

1.1455

1.8091

2.9700e-
003

0.0515

0.0515
281.4481
281.4481

0.0154
281.8319
Total

33.5905

1.1455

1.8091

2.9700e-
003

0.0515

0.0515
281.4481
281.4481

0.0154
281.8319
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 22 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.1440

0.0862

1.2373

4.1200e-
003

0.5701

2.2800e-
003

0.5723

0.1512

2.1000e-
003

0.1533
416.2839
416.2839

8.7000e-
003

9.9800e-
003
419.4760
Total

0.1440

0.0862

1.2373

4.1200e-
003

0.5701

2.2800e-
003

0.5723

0.1512

2.1000e-
003

0.1533
416.2839
416.2839

8.7000e-
003

9.9800e-
003
419.4760
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating

33.4197

0.0000

0.0000
Off-Road

0.1709

1.1455

1.8091

2.9700e-
003

0.0515

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0154
281.8319
Total

33.5905

1.1455

1.8091

2.9700e-
003

0.0515

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0154
281.8319
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 23 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling

0.0000

0.0000
Vendor

0.0000

0.0000
Worker

0.1440

0.0862

1.2373

4.1200e-
003

0.5701

2.2800e-
003

0.5723

0.1512

2.1000e-
003

0.1533
416.2839
416.2839

8.7000e-
003

9.9800e-
003
419.4760
Total

0.1440

0.0862

1.2373

4.1200e-
003

0.5701

2.2800e-
003

0.5723

0.1512

2.1000e-
003

0.1533
416.2839
416.2839

8.7000e-
003

9.9800e-
003
419.4760
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 24 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Mitigated

3.5299

5.5353

35.7941

0.0892

10.4524

0.0721

10.5245

2.7881

0.0676

2.8556
9,093.912
8 9,093.912
8 0.4676

0.4516
9,240.172
1 Unmitigated

3.5299

5.5353

35.7941

0.0892

10.4524

0.0721

10.5245

2.7881

0.0676

2.8556
9,093.912
8 9,093.912
8 0.4676

0.4516
9,240.172
1 4.2 Trip Summary Information

0.00 0.00

0.00 General Office Building

53.08 12.04

14.70 5.90

8.70 40.20

19.20 40.60
86 11
3 Enclosed Parking Structure

16.60 8.40

6.90 0.00

0.00 0.00
0 0
0 General Office Building

16.60 8.40

6.90 33.00

48.00 19.00
77 19
4 4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
Apartments Mid Rise

0.542916

0.056689

0.174450

0.134041

0.024680

0.006960

0.011589

0.018600

0.000608

0.000298

0.023389

0.001091

0.004689
Enclosed Parking Structure

0.542916

0.056689

0.174450

0.134041

0.024680

0.006960

0.011589

0.018600

0.000608

0.000298

0.023389

0.001091

0.004689
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 25 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

General Office Building

0.542916

0.056689

0.174450

0.134041

0.024680

0.006960

0.011589

0.018600

0.000608

0.000298

0.023389

0.001091

0.004689

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.1098

0.9383

0.4013

5.9900e-
003

0.0758

0.0758
1,197.392
8 1,197.392
8 0.0230

0.0220
1,204.508
3 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.1098

0.9383

0.4013

5.9900e-
003

0.0758

0.0758
1,197.392
8 1,197.392
8 0.0230

0.0220
1,204.508
3 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 26 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

0.1092

0.9332

0.3971

5.9600e-
003

0.0755

0.0755
1,191.367
5 1,191.367
5 0.0228

0.0218
1,198.447
2 Enclosed Parking
Structure
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
General Office
Building

51.2151

5.5000e-
004

5.0200e-
003

4.2200e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.8000e-
004

6.0253

1.2000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

6.0611
Total

0.1098

0.9383

0.4013

5.9900e-
003

0.0758

0.0758
1,197.392
8 1,197.392
8 0.0230

0.0220
1,204.508
3 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 27 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior
No Hearths Installed

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

10.1266

0.1092

0.9332

0.3971

5.9600e-
003

0.0755

0.0755
1,191.367
5 1,191.367
5 0.0228

0.0218
1,198.447
2 Enclosed Parking
Structure
0 0.0000

0.0000

0.0000
General Office
Building

0.0512151

5.5000e-
004

5.0200e-
003

4.2200e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.8000e-
004

6.0253

1.2000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

6.0611
Total

0.1098

0.9383

0.4013

5.9900e-
003

0.0758

0.0758
1,197.392
8 1,197.392
8 0.0230

0.0220
1,204.508
3 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 28 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Mitigated

5.5566

0.2444

21.2256

1.1200e-
003

0.1177

0.0000

38.2700

0.0368

0.0000

39.1899
Unmitigated

5.5566

0.2444

21.2256

1.1200e-
003

0.1177

0.0000

38.2700

0.0368

0.0000

39.1899

0.4029

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

4.5138

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

0.0000

0.0000
Landscaping

0.6400

0.2444

21.2256

1.1200e-
003

0.1177

38.2700

0.0368

39.1899
Total

5.5566

0.2444

21.2256

1.1200e-
003

0.1177

0.0000

38.2700

0.0368

0.0000

39.1899
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 29 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.4029

0.0000

0.0000
Consumer
Products

4.5138

0.0000

0.0000
Hearth

0.0000

0.0000
Landscaping

0.6400

0.2444

21.2256

1.1200e-
003

0.1177

38.2700

0.0368

39.1899
Total

5.5566

0.2444

21.2256

1.1200e-
003

0.1177

0.0000

38.2700

0.0368

0.0000

39.1899
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0
Date: 8/8/2022 5:43 PM

Page 30 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Days/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type

Page 31 of 31 ends

1575 University Avenue - Riverside-Mojave Desert SCAQMD County, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

Appendix C
Biological Assessment Report

1575 UNIVERSITY AVEN

UE, CITY OF RIVERSID
E

PROJECT

Biological
Assessment

Report

Prepared for

August

2022

Kimley
-
Horn

660 South Figueroa Street
, Suite
2050

Los Angeles, California 90017

1575 UNIVERSITY AVEN

UE, CITY OF RIVERSID
E
PROJEC
T

Biological Assessment Report

Prepared for

August 2022

Kimley
-
Horn

660 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2050

Los Angeles, California 90017

Prepared by:

Environmental Science Associates (ESA)

16755 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 200

Irvine, CA 92606

16755

Von Karman Avenue

Suite 200

Irvine, CA 92606

949.753.7001

esassoc.com

Bend

Camarillo

Delray Beach

Destin

Irvine

Los Angeles

Oakland

Orlando

Pasadena

Petaluma

Portland

Sacramento

San Diego

San Francisco

Santa Monica

Sarasota

Seattle

Tampa

OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY

ESA helps

a variety of public
and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA

is a registered
assessor with the Calif
ornia Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and
founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainabilit y Vision and
Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.

1575 University Avenue Pro
ject

ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August 2022

ABLE OF CONTENTS

Biological
Assessment

Report

Page

Executive Summary

................................
................................
................................
...........

ES
-
1 Chapter

Introduction

................................
................................
................................
........
1 -
1 1.1

Project Location and Background

................................
................................
........
1 -
1 1.2

Project Description

................................
................................
...............................
1 -
1 Chap
ter

Methodology

................................
................................
................................
.......
2 -
1 2.1

Biological Study Area

................................
................................
...........................
2 -
1 2.2

Existing Literature and Database Review

................................
............................
2 -
1 2.3

Field Survey

................................
................................
................................
.........
2 -
1 2.3.1

Biologic
al Resources and Existing Conditions

................................
.........
2 -
1 2.3.2

Sensitive Natural Communities and Special
-
Status Plants and
Wildlife

................................
................................
................................
.......
2 -
2 Chapter

Regulatory Framework

................................
................................
......................
3 -
1 3.1

Federa
l Regulations

................................
................................
.............................
3 -
1 3.1.1

Federal Endangered Species Act

................................
.............................
3 -
1 3.1.2

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

................................
................................
..........
3 -
2 3.1.3

Clean Water Act

................................
................................
........................
3 -
3 3.1.4

Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act

................................
.....................
3 -
3 3.2

State Regulations

................................
................................
................................
.
3 -
4 3.2.1

California Fish and Game Code

................................
...............................
3 -
4 3.2.2

California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15380

.............
3 -
5 3.2.3

California Water Quality Control Act (Porter
-
Cologne California
Water Code Section 13260)
................................
................................
......
3 -
6 3.3

Regional or Local Regulations

................................
................................
.............
3 -
6 3.3.1

Western Riverside

County MSHCP

................................
..........................
3 -
6 Chapter

Existing Conditions

................................
................................
...........................
4 -
1 4.1

Soils

................................
................................
................................
......................
4 -
1 4.2

P
lant

Communities and Land Cover Types

................................
.........................
4 -
1 4.2.1

R
uderal

................................
................................
................................
......
4 -
3 4.2.
2 Developed

................................
................................
................................
.
4 -
3 4.3

Sensitive Biological Resources

................................
................................
............
4 -
3 4.3.1

Special
-
Status Species

................................
................................
.............
4 -
3 4.3.2

Sensitive Natural Communities

................................
................................
.
4 -
4 4.3.3

Critical Habitat

................................
................................
...........................
4 -
5 4.4

Aquatic Resources

................................
................................
...............................
4 -
5 4.5

Regional Connectivity, Wildlife Movement, and Habitat Linkages

......................
4 -
5 4.6

Regulated Trees

................................
................................
................................
...
4 -
6 Chapter

Project Impacts and Av
oidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

.....................
5 -
1 5.1

Approach to the Analysis

................................
................................
.....................
5 -
1 5.2

Thresholds of Significance

................................
................................
...................
5 -
2 Table of Contents

Page

1575 University Avenue Project

ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August 2022

5.3 Impacts Analysis

................................
................................
................................
..
5 -
2 5
.4

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures

................................
............
5 -
4 5.5

Cumulative Impacts
................................
................................
..............................
5 -
4 Chapter

References Cited

................................
................................
................................
6 -
1 Appendices

Floral and Faunal Compendium

CN
DDB

Special
-
Status
Plant and
Wildlife Species

Site Photographs

List of Figures

Figure

1 Regional Map

................................
................................
................................
.......
1 -
2 Figure

2 Project Locati
on

................................
................................
................................
...
1 -
3 Figure

3 Plant Community and Land Cover

................................
................................
.......
4 -
2 1575 University Avenue Project

ES
-
1 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August 2022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed
1575 University Avenue
Mixed
-
Use

Project

is located in a
ful
ly developed
portion
of the City of
Riverside

in western Riverside County.

The

4.29 -
acre
project site
(APN 250

170
036)
is
located
within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The
re is no

natural communit
y onsite

and land cove
r types within the project site
consist of developed
and ruderal
areas
,
the latter including non
-
native grasses and forbs
.

N
o special
-
status plant species were detected during the
project site

survey
.

special
-
status
w
ildlife species

were observed durin
g the project site survey
.

There is no

native habitat on
-
site to
support these
special
-
status species
. The removal of

2.27 acre
s

of
ruderal vegetation will

not
threaten
or endanger any
regional
wildlife
populations

and
the impact would

be
less than
signifi
cant.

The project site does not occur within or immediately adjacent to designed
critical
habitat.

W
ildlife migration corridors
do not occur within the project site
.

Thus,
no impact

to wildlife
movement and/or nursery sites is exp
ected as a result of proje
ct
development
.

The proposed
project may result in the disturbance of nest
ing birds
protected by the
federal
Migratory Bird
Treaty Act
and
the California Fish and Game Code Sections

3503
,

3503.5
, and 3513
.

Disturbance

nesting birds
would be
avoided through

compliance with the federal and state
regulations
.

The proposed project would be consistent

with

the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (
MSHCP
)

and is within the MSHCP

development fee

area.

1575 University Avenue Project

1 -
1 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August 2022

CHAPTER

1 Introduction

1.1 Project Locati
on and Background

Environmental Science Associates (ESA) conducted a biological resources assessment of the

1575 University Avenue Mixed
-
Use

Project

(proposed project)

located
on

the
north side

of
University Avenue, between Chicago

and C
ranford

Avenue
s

in
the City of
Riverside
, Riverside
County, California

(project site)

(
Figure
1 ,
Regional Map
)
.

The project site encompasses
a single
parcel
, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN)
250
-
17 0
-
0 36
,
and

4.29 acres (
Figure
2 , Project
Location). The project site is within S
ection
19 , Township
2 South and Range 4 West, in the
Riverside East
, 7.5
-
minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle.

1.2 Project Description

The proposed project would

consist of the construction of a five
-
story, at
-
grade mixed
-
use/residential building, w
hich would occupy the majority of the project site
.

An at
-
grade parking
structure would be constructed in the central portion of the project site, and a swimming pool and spa is proposed within the southern portion of the project site. Retaining walls (up to six feet
high) are proposed to support excavations associated with the construction of the elevator pits.

The existing building and parking lot in the southern portion, as well as the concrete pads in the vacant northern portion of the project site woul
d be removed.

!^ Ø
Project Location

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

ORANGE COUNTY
A n g e l e s
N a t i o n a l
F o r e s t
S a n B e r n a r d i n o
N a t i o n a l F o r e s t
C l e v e l a n d
N a t i o n a l
F o r e s t
Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\2022xxx\D202200383_1575_University_Riverside\03_MXDs_Projects\Bio.aprx, sgeissler 8/18/2022 SOURCE: ESRI
N
0 8
Miles
Ø
Project Area
1575 University Avenue
Figure 1
Regional Map
Ø
Project
Location
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\2022xxx\D202200383_1575_University_Riverside\03_MXDs_Projects\Bio.aprx Fig 2 - Project Location, sgeissler 8/18/2022 SOURCE: USGS 7.5" Topoquad Riverside East
1575 University Avenue
Figure 2
Project Location
N
0 2,000
Feet
Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

1 -
4 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August

2022

This page intentionally left blank

1575 University Avenue Project

2 -
1 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August 2022

CHAPTER

2 Methodology

2.1 Biological Study Area

The
biological study area
consists of the

4.29 -
acre

project site,
including APN
250
-
17 0
-
0 36
.

2.2 Existing Literature and

Database Review

ESA reviewed
available literature

related to

biological resources
that
occur on
-
site
, and
conducted q
ueries of available resource inventory database to analyze the potential for sensitive resources to occur within or immediate
ly adjacent t
o the project site
.

The literature and database
review included the following sources:



California Departm
ent of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)

California Natural Diversity Data Base

(CNDDB)
(CDFW 2022). The database was queried for special
-
status species record
s in the
Riverside East

USGS 7.5
-
minute quadrangle
.



Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey

(USDA 2022).



U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Critical Habitat Portal

(USFWS 2022
).

2.2.1 Regional Connectivity, Wildlife Movement, and
Habitat
Linkages

Pursuant to
the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Sections 6.1.1
-

6.1.5,
ESA
analy
zed

potential

wildlife habitat linkages

as they pertain to a review
of the urban/wildlands interface.

The analysis o
f wildlife
habitat linkages
associated with the
project site

and its immediate vicinity is based on information compiled from literature ; MSHCP
mapped habitat linkages (Figure 3
-
2,
Schematic Cores and Linkages

Map

in the MSHCP [2004]);

analysis of the Crit
eria Area conservation language as it
relates
to habitat cores and linkages;

analysis of
aerial photographs
; and d
irect observations

(including sign, tracks and physical
movement barriers, including recent development)

made in the field

during the biologic
al survey
.

T
he discussion in this report
is

focus
es

on
potential
wildlife movement associated with the
project
site

and the immediate vicinity.

2.3 Field Survey

2.3.1 Biological Resources and Existing Conditions

A
general biological
site investigation

was

conducted

by
ESA
biologist Daryl Koutnik on
July

20,
2022. The biologist

conducted the survey by walking the project site to
map existing

vegetation
Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

2 -
2 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August

2022

and
assess

the potential for special
-
status plants and wildlife to occur. The vegetation mapping effort

was
conducte
d pursuant to
Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities

(CDFW 2018
)
.

The

visual
inspection of species composition was deemed sufficient by the surveying biologist to accurate ly
describe each community

and the nature of biological resources
.

All incidental visual observations of flora and fauna, as well as any audible detections were noted during the
site investigation
and considered when assessing potential for special
-
status
species to
occur. All native and non
-
native natural communities and land cover types
were mapped
based on
current existing conditions, and then digitized on aerial maps using Geographic Information System software (i.e., ArcGIS).

D
escript
ions of vegetation

were characterized in the field in
accordance with
A Manual of California Vegetation
(
Manual) (
Sawyer et al. 2009); however,
the
observed plant community is not

listed i
n the Manual because of the disturbed nature of the
project site
. A detailed descripti
on of each natural community and land cover type is provided in
Section 4.3
.

2.3.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Special
-
Status
Plants and Wildlife

ESA assess
ed

the potential for sensitive biological resources to occur within the project site.

Sensitive Nat
ural Communities

Sensitive natural communities and habitats are defined by the CDFW as those natural communities that have a reduced range and/or are imperiled as a result of residential and commercial development, agriculture, energy production and mining , or an influx of invasive and
other problematic species. Vegetation communities are evaluated using NatureServe’s Heritage Methodology (NatureServe 2022), which is based on the knowledge of range and distribution of a specific vegetation type and the prop
ortion of occurrences that are of good ecological integrity.

The communities and habitats are evaluated at both global (natural range within and outside of California [G]) and subnational (state level for California [S]) status ranks, each ranked from 1 (“
critically imperiled” or very rare and threatened) to 5 (demonstrably secure). Natural communities and habitats with state ranks of S1
–
S3 are considered sensitive and may require
review when environmental impacts are evaluated. When a community is given a rank of NR, this
indicates that it has not yet been rank
ed under NatureServe (CDFW 2022
).

Special
-
Status Plants and Wildlife

Special
-
status plants and wildlife are defined as those that, because of their recognized rarity or vulnerability to various forms
of habitat loss or population decline, are considered by federal, state, or other agencies to be under threat from human
-
associated developments. Some of these
species receive specific protection that is defined by federal or state endangered species legis
lation and others have been designated as special
-
status on the basis of adopted local policies
(e.g., city and county) or the educated opinion of various resource interest groups (e.g., Western Bat Working Group [WBWG]). Special
-
status wildlife is defined

as any of the following:

Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

2 -
3 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August 2022



Plant and wildlife species that are listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, or are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered, under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or the Cali
fornia Endangered Species Act (CESA).



Plant and wildlife species that meet the definitions of rare or endangered under California
Environmental Quality Act (
CEQA
)

Guidelines Section 15380.



Wildlife designated by CDFW as species of special concern (SSC), in cluded on the Watch
List, or considered “Special Animals.”



Wildlife fully protected in California (
California
Fish and Game Code

[CFGC]

Sections
3511, 4700, 5050
,

and

5515
).



Plants considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be rare, threa tened, or
endanger
ed (California Rare Plant Rank [
CRPR
]

1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B plants) in California.



Plants listed by the CNPS as plants for which more information is needed to determine their status and plants of limited distribution (CRPR 3 and 4 plants).



P
lants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act ( C
FGC 1900 et seq.).



Bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

(MBTA)
.



Eagles protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)



Bat species considered priority
by the WBWG.

Aquatic Resources

The
project
site was assessed for its
potential
to support
jurisdictional areas
based on the
presence
of definable channels

(bed and bank)
, ordinary flow (Ordinary High Water Mark

[OHWM]
),
hydrology,
vegetation communities, a
nd Riparian/Riverine resources
that
are

subject to the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (
USACE)

jurisdiction pursuant to
Section

404 of the
Clean Water Act,
CDFW

jurisdiction pursuant to
Division

2,
Chapter

6,
Section

1600 of the
CFGC
, the Regional Wa
ter Quality Control Board (RWQCB
) pursuant to Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act

and Section 13260 of the California Water Code, i.e., the Porter -
Cologne Water
Quality Control Act
, and
riparian/riverine resources
pursuant to
S
ection

6.1.2 of the
MSHCP
(
Dud
ek

200
3 ).

Other Waters of the U.S.

Other waters of the U.S. refer to those hydric features that are regulated by the Clean Water Act but are not wetlands (33 CFR 328.4). These features extend to the OHWM, defined in 33 CFR 328.3 as the line on the shore e
stablished by fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the character of the soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; or the presence of litter and debris.

In
the Arid West region of the United States, waters are variable and include ephemeral/intermittent and perennial channel forms. The most problematic ordinary high -
water delineations are
associated with the commonly occurring ephemeral/intermittent channe l forms that dominate the
Arid West landscape” (USACE 2008
a
). Delineation methods for “other waters of the U.S.” were completed in accordance with
A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark in the Arid West Region of the Western Un
ited States

(USACE 2008
b
).

Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

2 -
4 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August

2022

According to the most recent guidance provided in the Navigable Waters Protection Rule Vacatur, adopted on January 5, 2022, the USACE and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have reverted to the pre
-
2015 definition of “waters
of the United States” and now take
jurisdiction over the following:

1. Traditional navigable waters (TNWs), which is defined as all waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, incl
uding all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.

2. Wetlands adjacent to TNW, including adjacent wetlands that do not have a continuous surface connection to TNW.

3. Non
-
navigable tributaries of TNW that are relatively permanent where the tri butaries
typically flow year
-
round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months).

4. Wetlands adjacent to non
-
navigable tributaries as defined above
,

that have a continuous
surface connection to such tributaries (e.g., they are not s eparated by uplands, a berm, dike, or
similar feature).

The EPA and the USACE decide jurisdiction over the following waters, based on a fact -
specific
analysis to determine if there is a significant nexus, as described below, to a TNW.

1. Non
-
navigable tributa
ries that are not relatively permanent.

2. Wetlands adjacent to non
-
navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent.

3. Wetlands that are adjacent to but do not directly abut a relatively permanent non -
navigable
tributary.

The EPA and the USACE generall
y do not assert jurisdiction over the following features:

1. Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low -
volume,
infrequent, or short
-
duration flow).

2. Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining onl y uplands and that
do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water.

Other Waters of the State

Other waters of the state, when they overlap with waters of the U.S., are those that are regulated under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and are delineated u sing the same methodology as
waters of the U.S. However, these waters are not subject to determining a nexus to a TNW. In the absence of waters of the U.S., waters may be regulated under the Porter -
Cologne Water Quality
Control Act if project activities, d
ischarges, or proposed activities or discharges could affect surface, coastal, or ground waters. The permit
requested

by the applicant and issued by the
RWQCB is either a Water Quality Certification in the presence of waters of the U.S. or a Waste Discharg
e Requirement (WDR) in the absence of waters of the U.S.

Most projects involving water bodies or drainages that display a “bed and bank” (i.e., OHWM) are regulated by the RWQCB, the principal state agency overseeing water quality at the local/regional leve
l.

Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

2 -
5 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August 2022

Streams and Associated Vegetation and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas

Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1600 et seq. of the C
FGC, CDFW regulates all
diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, s
tream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife (streams and associated vegetation). A notification of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) must be submitted to CDFW for “any activity that may substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.” In
addition, CDFW has authority, under the
C
FGC, over wetland and riparian habitats associated
with lakes and streams. The CDFW reviews proposed actions and, if necessary, submits to the applicant a draft Streambed Alteration Agree
ment (SAA) that includes measures to protect
affected fish and wildlife resources. The final SAA is mutually agreed upon by CDFW and the applicant.

Pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.2, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian Areas and Vernal Pools, the
potential effect of proposed project activities occurring within the MSHCP must be assessed regarding any and all impacts to riparian/riverine areas. Riparian/riverine areas include “those that contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergen ts, or emergent
mosses and lichens, which occur close to
,

or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby
water source; or areas with freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year” (Dudek 2003).

Potentially jurisdictional
CDFW
streams and associated

vegetation, and MSHCP riparian/riverine
areas, are determined by establishing the area within the top of bank (TOB), defined as the furthest break in slope or change in substrate, from the bed of the channel, prior to reaching adjacent upland areas (assum
ing the absence of riparian vegetation), and/or extent of riparian/wetland vegetation.

1575 University Avenue Project

3 -
1 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August 2022

CHAPTER

3 Regulatory Framework

This section provides a summary of the federal, state, and local environmental regulations that govern the biological resources applicable to the
project site
. This section also
provides

a
summary of other state and local environmental guidelines or listings that evaluate the rarity of species
or the habitats they depend on.

3.1 Federal

Regulations

3.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act

The United States Congre
ss passed the FESA in 1973 to protect those species that are endangered or threatened with extinction. FESA is intended to operate in conjunction with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)

to help protect the ecosystems upon which endangered and thr
eatened species depend.

FESA prohibits the “take” of endangered or threatened wildlife species. “Take” is defined to include harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting wildlife species or any atte mpt to engage in such
conduct (FESA Section 3 [(3)(19)]). Harm is further defined to include significant habitat modification or
degradation

that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns (50 Code of Federa
l Regulations [CFR] Section 17.3).
“
Harass
”

is
defined as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns (50 CFR Section 17.3). Actions that result in take can result
in

civil or criminal penalties.

Section 7 of the FESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with and assistance from the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out ar
e not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species. The USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) share responsibilities

for
administering the FESA. Regulations governing interagency cooperation under Section 7 are found in CCR Title 50, Part 402.

Section 7 is triggered when a federal permit or other
authorization is considered by a federal agency
, or the project receives f
ederal funding
.

The need
for federal regulatory permits (i.e.,
Clean Water Act [
CWA
]

Section 404 permit issued by the
USACE) provides a “federal nexus” by which a Section 7 consultation can occur. This statute imposes the obligation on federal agencies to
ensure that their actions (such as issuing federal
CWA permits) are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify its designated critical habitat. This obligation is enforced through the procedural requ
irement that agencies, such as the USACE, initiate consultation with USFWS on any actions that may affect a threatened or endangered species.

The
USFWS will determine the
Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

3 -
2 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August

2022

proposed action is not likely to adversely affect

threatened or endangered species or

result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species , or a
Biological
O
pinion
issued at the conclusion of consultation will include a statement authorizing “take” (to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, kill, etc.) that m
ay occur incidental to an otherwise legal activity.

Section 9 lists those actions that are prohibited under the FESA. Although take of a listed species is prohibited, it is allowed when it is incidental to an otherwise legal activity. Section 9 prohibits take of listed species of fish, wildlife, and plants without special exemption. The definition of “harm” includes significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patter ns related to breeding, feeding, or
shelter. “Harass” is defined as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species by disrupting normal behavioral patterns related to breeding, feeding, and shelter significantly.

Section 10 provides a means

whereby a non
-
federal action with the potential to result in take of a listed species can be allowed under an incidental take permit

which may be issued once a Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) is approved
. Application procedures are found at 50

CFR 13 and
17 for
species under the jurisdiction of USFWS and 50 CFR 217, 220, and 222 for species under the jurisdiction of NMFS.

In addition, a local regulatory program established by the MSHCP and associated governing documents
provides
for regional conservation
of many species while also allowing limited
impacts to biological resources in association with planned development. The MSHCP establishes an alternative pathway to the Section 10 and Section 7 procedures by which local projects in the Plan Area may receiv
e both State and federal incidental take authorization for species identified
as
“
covered
”

and
“
conditionally covered
”, based on compliance with relevant conditions set forth in the plan.

Further details about the regional
MSHCP and its provisions for inci
dental take
coverage
are discussed
in Section 3.3.1
below.

3.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The MBTA

generally prohibits the killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds, bird parts, eggs, and nests, except as provided by the statute. The MBTA authorizes th e Secretary of the
Interior to regulate the taking of migratory birds. It further provides that it is unlawful, except as permitted by regulations, “to pursue, take, or kill any migratory bird, or any part, nest or egg of any such bird…” (16 United States
Code [USC] 703).

The MBTA, first enacted in 1916, prohibits any person, unless permitted by regulations, to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipm
ent, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory b
ird, included in the terms of this Convention…
for

the protection of migratory birds…or any part,
nest, or egg of any such bird” (16 U.S. Code 703).

Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

3 -
3 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August 2022

3.1.3 Clean Water Act

Pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, the USACE is authorized to regulate any activity that wo uld
result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, which include those waters listed in 33 CFR Part 328 (Definitions). USACE, with oversight by the U.S. EPA, has the principal authority to issue CWA Section 404 Permit s.

Pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, the RWQCB certifies that any discharge into jurisdictional waters of the United States will comply with state water quality standards. The RWQCB

has the
principal authority to issue a CWA Section 401 water quality cer tification or waiver.

3.1.4 Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection
Act

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act was originally enacted in 1940 as the Bald Eagle Protection Act to protect bald eagles, and was later amended to include golden eagles. The Act prohibits th
e taking, possession, or commerce in bald and golden eagles, parts, feathers, nests, or eggs with limited exceptions. Take is defined as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb”, and includes both direct tak ing of individuals and take
due to disturbance. “Disturb” is defined as:

“to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to any eagle, 2) a decrease

in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.” 1 The definition of “disturb” is further
defined by USFWS as follows:

“In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from human
-
caused alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagles return , such
alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that injures an eagle or substantially interferes with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” 2 Bald
and golden
eagles may not be taken for any purpose unless a permit is issued prior to the
tak
ing.

Activities which can be authorized by permit include scientific collection/research, exhibition, tribal religious, depredation, falconry, and the taking of inactive eagle nests, which interfere with resource development or recovery operations. Current ly, USFWS has a permitting
process proposed for other activities that would allow disturbance to eagles or take of an eagle nest where their location poses a risk to human or eagle safety.

1 50 CFR 22.3

2 USFWS. 2007.

National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines

Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

3 -
4 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August

2022

3.2 State

Regulations

3.2.1 California Fish and Game Code

The CFGC regulates

the taking or possession of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as natural resources such as wetlands and waters of the state. It includes the CESA (Sections 2050
–
2115) and Streambed Alteration Agreement regulations (Sections 1600 –
1616
).

These sections are described further below.

CFGC Sections 1600
-
1616

Pursuant to Section 1600 et seq.

of the CFGC, the CDFW (formerly California Department of Fish and Game) regulates activities of an applicant’s project that would substantially alter th e
flow, bed, channel, or bank
s

of streams or lakes, unless certain conditions outlined by CDFW are met by the applicant. The limits of CDFW jurisdiction are defined in CFGC Section 1600 et seq. as the “bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream,
3 or lake d
esignated by CDFW in which there is
at any time an existing fish or wildlife resource or from which these resources derive benefit.” 4 However, in practice, CDFW usually extends its jurisdictional limit and assertion to the top of a bank of a stream, the ba
nk of a lake, or outer edge of the riparian vegetation, whichever is wider.

California Endangered Species Act

(
CFGC

Section

2050 et seq.)

CESA establishes the policy of the state to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species
and their habitats. CESA mandates that state agencies should not approve projects that would jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid jeopardy. There are no

state
agency consultation procedures under CESA. For projects that would affect a listed species under both CESA and FESA, compliance with FESA would satisfy CESA if CDFW determines that the federal incidental take authorization is “consistent” with CESA under
CFGC

Section 2080.1. For
projects that would result in take of a species listed under the CESA only, the project operator would have to apply for a take permit under Section

2081(b).

Section 2081(b) procedures by which local
projects in the Plan Area may receive both State and federal incidental take authorization for species identified as
“
covered
”

and
“
conditionally covered
”, based on compliance with relevant
conditions set forth in

the plan.

Further details about the regional
MSHCP and its provisions for
incidental take coverage
are discussed

in Section 3.3.1

below.

3 Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 1.72 defines a strea m as “a body of water that flows at least
periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian v egetation.”

4 This also includes the habitat upon which they depend for continued viability ( CFGC

Division 5, Chapter 1,
Section 45, and Division 2, Chapter 1, Section 711.2[a]).

Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

3 -
5 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August 2022

CFGC
Sections

2080 and 2081

Section 2080 of the
CFGC

states that “No person shall import into this state [California],

export
out of this state, or take, possess, purchase, or sell within this state, any species, or any part or product thereof, that the Commission [State Fish and Game Commission] determines to be an endangered species or threatened species, or attempt any

of those acts, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter, or the Native Plant Protection Act, or the California Desert Native Plants Act.” Pursuant to Section 2081, CDFW may authorize individuals or public agencies to import, export, take, or possess s
tate
-
listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species. These otherwise prohibited acts may be authorized through Incidental Take permits or Memoranda of Understanding if the take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, impacts of the authorized t
ake are minimized and fully mitigated, the permit is consistent with any regulations adopted pursuant to any recovery plan for the species, and the project operator ensures adequate funding to implement the measures required by CDFW, which makes this deter mination based on
available scientific information and considers the ability of the species to survive and reproduce.

Since the
MSHCP

provides coverage for take of some State
-
listed species, there would not be a
need for an additional 2081 permit process
unless a project does not comply with
MSHCP

requirements and may result in take of a State
-
listed species or if a State
-
listed species not
covered by the
MSHCP

were to result in take.

Further details about the regional
MS
HCP are
discussed in Section
3 .3.1
below.

CFGC Sections
3503, 3503.5, and 3513

S
ections
3503, 3503.5, and 3513
of the
C
FGC

prohibit

the taking, possessing, or destroying of
any birds of prey; the taking or possessing of any migratory nongame bird; the taking, possessing, or needlessly destr
oying of the nest or eggs of any raptors or nongame birds; or the taking of any nongame bird pursuant to
CFGC
Section 3800.

CFGC Section
3513 adopts the federal migratory
bird take provisions under the MBTA that prohibit the intentional take or possession of birds
designated by the MBTA as migratory nongame birds except as allowed by federal rules and regulat
ions pursuant to the MBTA.

3.2.2 California Environm
ental Quality Act Guidelines,
Section
15380

Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes,
CEQA Guidelines
Section

15380(b) provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria.

These criteria have been modeled after the definition in FESA and the section of the
CFGC

dealing with rare or endangered plants or animals. This section was included in CEQA

primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project

that
may have a significant effect on, for example, a species that has not been listed by either USFWS or CDFW

but otherwise has some status as a special
-
status species
. Thus, CEQA provides an
agency with the ability to protect a species from the potentia l impacts of a project until the
respective government agencies have an opportunity to designate the species as protected, if warranted. CEQA also calls for the protection of other locally or regionally significant resources, Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

3 -
6 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August

2022

including natural communities.

CEQA calls for an assessment of whether any such resources would be affected and requires findings of significance if there would be substantial losses.

Natural communities listed by CNDDB as sensitive are considered by CDFW to be significant resources an
d fall under the State CEQA Guidelines for addressing impacts. Local planning documents such as General Plans often identify these resources as well.

3.2.3 California Water Quality Control Act (Porter
-
Cologne
California Water Code Section 13260)

The State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the RWQCB (together “Boards”) are the principal State agencies with primary responsibility for the coordination and control of water quality. The Boards regulate activities pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the federal CW A as well
as the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -
Cologne) (Water Code Section 13260).

Section 401 of the CWA specifies that certification from the State is required for any applicant requesting a federal license or permit to conduct any ac tivity including but not limited to the
construction or operation of facilities that may result in any discharge into navigable waters. The certification shall originate from the State in which the discharge originates or will originate, if appropriate, fr
om the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable water at the point where the discharge originates or will originate. Any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 3 07 of the CWA.

Under
Porter
-
Cologne, the Legislature declared that the “State must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of the waters in the State from degradation...” (California Water Code Section 13000). Porter
-
Cologne grants the Boards the authority to
implement and enforce the water quality laws, regulations, policies and plans to protect the groundwater and surface waters of the State. It is important to note that enforcement of the State's water quality requ
irements is not solely the purview of the Boards and their staff. Other agencies (e.g., CDFW) have the ability to enforce certain water quality provisions in state law.

3.3 Regional

or Local

Regulations

3.3.1 Western Riverside County MSHCP

Per CFGC Sections 2800
-
284
0 ,
t
he Natural

Community Conservation Plan
ning

(
NCCP
)

Act (the

Act),
authorized the preparation of NCCPs to protect natural communities and species while allowing a reasonable amount of economic development.

The MSHCP, adopted by the County of Riverside on

June 17, 2003, serves as a HCP pursuant to
the Act and pursuant to Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the FESA. The Implementation Agreement (IA) sets forth the implementation requirements for the MSHCP as well as procedures and minimization measures related to take

of habitats and species considered for conservation.

Implementation of the MSHCP authorizes participating jurisdictions to “take” specified plant and wildlife species within the MSHCP Plan Area. In addition, the wildlife agencies, namely USFWS
and
CDFW, a
llow take of habitat or individual species outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area in exchange for the assembly and management of a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area. The assembly and long
-
term management of the MSHCP Conservation Area is the responsibili ty of
Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

3 -
7 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August 2022

the Riverside County,
Federal, and
State governments; Cities within the western portion of Riverside County; and private and public entities that conduct activities which would potentially impact the habitats and species considered for conservation u nder the MSHCP.

Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

3 -
8 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August

2022

This page intentionally left blank

1575 University Avenue Project

4 -
1 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August 2022

CHAPTER

4 Existing Conditions

The proposed project is located in a developed portion of the City of Riverside

in western
Riverside County within the San
Ana River

watershed. Regional geographic features around
the
area include
Santa Ana River to the
west,
Box Springs Mountains

to the east, and scattered
urban

development in all directions.

The project site is
located
within the
Western Riverside County
MSHCP.

4.1 Soils

The Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area
ident
ifi
ed
two
soil series mapped within the boundary
of the
project site
, which

are described below (NRCS 2022
)
.

Arlington fine sandy loam, deep
, 2 to
8 percent slopes
:

Soils in this series are
well
-
drained on
alluvial fans
. These soils

developed in alluvium

derived from
granite

rock.

This is not a hydric
soil.

Hanford

coarse

sandy loam,
0 to
2 percent slopes
:

Soils in this series are
well
-
drained soils on
alluvial fans. These soils developed in alluvium derived from granite

rock.

This is not a hydric
soil.

Th
e Hanford coarse sandy loam differs from Arlington fine sandy loam primarily in soil grain size and the capacity to transmit water.

4.2 Plant

Communities and Land Cover Types

The natural communities and land cover types are depicted in Figure
3 ,
Plant

Communit
ies and
Land Cover Types
,
and a

summary of acreages
within the project site

are presented below in
Table
1 ,
Plant

Communities and Land Cover Types
.

T
ABLE
1 P
LANT

OMMUNITIES AND
L
AND
C
OVER
T
YPES

Natural Communities and Land Cover Types

Project Site

(acres
)

Ruderal

2.27 Developed

2.02 Total

4.29 7th St
Presley
Ave
7th St
University Ave
University Ave
Cranford
Ave
7th St
Cranford
Ave
Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\2022xxx\D202200383_1575_University_Riverside\03_MXDs_Projects\Bio.aprx Fig 3 - Plant Community and Land Cover, sgeissler 8/18/2022 SOURCE: NearMap, 2022
1575 University Avenue
Figure 3
Plant Community and Land Cover
N
0 150
Feet
Project Site
Coast Live Oak
Goodding's Black Willow
Vegetation
Developed
Ruderal
Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

4 -
3 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August 2022

4.2.1 Ruderal

Non
-
native grasses
and forbs
occur in the
northern

portion of the project site,
which was
previously developed, as evidence from the concrete pads that are present
. Vegetation in this
community consists of non
-
native grasses and forbs such as
wild

oat (
Avena
fatu
a
), red brome
(
Bromus rubens
),
tocalote (
Centaurea melitensis
), red stemmed filaree (
Erodium cicutaria
),
and
foxtail barley (
Hordeum murinum
). The
re

is a scattering on
native
herbaceous species

in this
community
, including California poppy (
Eschscholzia californica
), common sunflower
(
Helianthus annuus
), and ragweed (
Ambrosia psilostachya
)
.

The community occupies 2.29 acres
of the project site
.

4.2.2 Developed

The developed land cover consists of
a

one
-
story commercial building with a surface parking lot
and associated landscaping occup
ying

the southern portion of

the
p
roject
s
ite
.

Landscape plants
observed include as Texas ranger (
Leucophyllum frute
scens
), trailing lantana (
Lantana
montevidensis
), coral aloe (
Aloe striata
), mock orange (
Pittosporum tobira
), and Mexican palo
verde (
Parkinsonia aculeata
). In addition to the landscape species, two adventitious native tree species were observed; Gooding’
s black willow (
Salix goodingii
), growing onsite near an
electrical utility cabinet next to the parking lot, and coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia
), growing
along the eastern property boundary, about in the middle of the parcel line.

4.3 Sensitive Biological R
esources

4.3.1 Special
-
Status
Species

Based on the literature review and field reconnaissance, special -
status species were evaluated for
their potential to occur within the
project site

or immediate vicinity, using the following
definitions:



Present:

Species was

observed or detected during project
-
specific biological surveys.



High Potential:

Species identified in the literature search and/or known to occur in the region and suitable habitat is present on the project site. These species are generally common and/or

widespread in the project area and vicinity.



Moderate Potential:

Species identified in the literature search and/or known to occur in the region and suitable habitat is present within the project site. These species are generally less common and/or widesp
read than species considered to have “high” potential to occur.



Low Potential:

Species identified in the literature search or known to occur in the region, but the habitat on site is of low or marginal quality and/or the project site occurs outside the spe
cies known geographic or elevational range. Distance to nearest known occurrence and the age of last reported local occurrence are also considered.



Absent/Not Expected:

Species known to occur in the region, but deemed absent because the project site is out
side their known range or elevation, suitable habitat is lacking on the site, or the species was not observed during focused surveys and would have been conspicuous if present.

Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

4 -
4 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August

2022

Based on the database search results, a list of potentially occurring special -
s
tatus species was
developed and evaluated for the
project site
. Special
-
status species with potential to occur were
defined as
those species whose

geographic
and elevational
range
include the
project site

and

that
require

habitat similar to
habitat

present

within the
project site

or immediate vicinity.

Special
-
Status Plants

Special
-
status plant species include federal and state endangered and threatened species (or candidate)
;

state rare
;

CNPS ranked species (California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 1A, 1B, 2A, an d
2B, as jointly determined by CNPS and CDFW)
; s
pecies covered under an adopted
NCCP and/or
HCP;
and species qualifying under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 (d).

Of the
eight

special
-
status plant
species considered for their potential to occur within
the
project
site
,
none of these species are expected

to occur because the
project site

lacks suitable habitat
and/or
is outside of the known elevation range for these specie s to support these species.

Additionally, t
he project site is not located
within th
e MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Survey Area as defined by Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP.

Furthermore, the
July 20
, 2022 general
biological site investigation

detected
no special
-
status plant species
on the project site
.

Species
evaluated for

potential to

occur are
summarized

in
Appendix
B
,
CNDDB,
Special
-
Status Species
.

Special
-
Status

Wildlife

S
pecial
-
status

wildlife species include federal and state endangered and threatened species

(or
candidate)
,

state fully protected,
CDFW Special Animals List,
state

wildlife species of special
concern

(SSC)
,
s
pecies covered under an adopted
NCCP and/or HCP,
and
species qualifying
under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 (d)
.

Of the
29 special
-
status
w
ildlife species considered for their potential to occur within th e
project
site
,
none

are
not expected

to occur because the
developed
project site

lacks suitable habitat
and/or
is

outside of the known range
to support

these species.

Additionally, the
project site is not
located
within the
Amphibian

Survey Area
, Burrowin
g Owl

Survey Area
, or

Mammal

Survey
Area as defined by Section 6.3
.2

of the MSHCP.

No special
-
status wildlife species were detected
during the site investigation.

Species
evaluated for

potential to occur are
summarized

in
Appendix
B
,
CNDDB,
Special
-
Status
Species
.

additional surveys are

required as
no special
-
status

species
are
expected to occur within the project site
.

4.3.2 Sensitive Natural Communities

Sensitive natural communities are designated as such by various resource agencies, such as the CDFW, or in

local policies and regulations. These communities are generally considered to have important functions or values for wildlife and/or are recognized as declining in extent or distribution and may be considered threatened enough to warrant some level of pro tection.

Sensitive natural communities include those that are identified in the CDFW Sensitive Natural
Communities
. The CDFW state rank denotes the rarity and endangerment of a vegetation type within the state as described below, with S1 through S3 conside red to be a sensitive natural
community by CDFW.

Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

4 -
5 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August 2022

State Conservation Rank

= Critically Imperiled
–

At very high risk of extirpation due to very restricted range, very few populations or occurrences, very steep declines, severe threats, or other factors.

= Imperiled
–

At high risk of extirpation due to restricted range, few populations or occurrences, steep declines, severe threats, or other factors.

= Vulnerable
–

At moderate risk of extirpation due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few popul
ations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors.

= Apparently Secure
–

At a fairly low risk of extirpation due to an extensive range and/or many populations or occurrences, but with possible cause for some concern as a r esult of
local recent declines, threats, or other factors.

= Secure
-

At very low or no risk of extirpation due to a very extensive range, abundant populations or occurrences, with little to no concern from declines or threats.

No natural community occu
rs on the project site and only the ruderal community supports native and non
-
native plant species. The ruderal community is not a sensitive natural community.

Therefore, there are no sensitive natural communities that occur within the project site.

4.3.3 Critic
al Habitat

The project site does not occur within or immediately adjacent to critical habitat.

4.4 Aquatic Resources

There are no a
quatic resources
that occur on the project site
.

4.5 Regional Connectivity, Wildlife Movement, and
Habitat Linkages

Wildlife habitat

linkages are areas which link otherwise isolated blocks of habitat to allow wide -
ranging animals to travel, genetic exchange to occur and to allow plants and animals to move in response to environmental changes and natural disasters. Wildlife habitat link ages also allow
populations of threatened species to be replenished from other areas via the metapopulation theory (Hilty et al. 2006).

Wildlife habitat linkages mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation by (1) allowing animals to move between remaini
ng habitats, which allows depleted populations to be replenished and promotes genetic diversity; (2) providing escape routes from natural disasters, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk that catastrophic events (such as fires or diseas e) will
result in population or local species extinction; and (3) serving as travel routes for individual animals as they move within their home ranges in search of food, water, mates, and other needs (Noss 1983, Fahrig and Merriam 1985, Simberloff and Cox

1987, Harris and Gallagher 1989).

Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

4 -
6 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August

2022

Wildlife linkages are landscape features that connect and link habitat patches or habitat cores with each other. They serve a similar purpose in that they are areas that allow for animal movement, but they may not have a
ll the resources a particular species needs to complete its life cycle.

A
s identified in Figure 3
-
2 ,

Schematic Cores and Linkages Map
,

of the MSHCP
,

w
ildlife
migration corridors
do not occur within the project site. A
dditionally, the project site is situa
ted in
a developed portion of the
Riverside
; as a result, t
he
re is no

available
habitat
to be used for

wildlife

migration or dispersal.

Consequently, the project site does not is not located within a wildlife corridor and does not support habitat to facili tate wildlife movement.

4.6 Regulated Trees

There are no
local policies or o
rdinances for the protection of the

tree species that
occur on the
project site, including the two native trees species.

1575 University Avenue Project

5 -
1 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August 2022

CHAPTER

5 Project Impacts and Avoidance, Minimization,
and Mitigation

5.1 Approach to the Analysis

This section describes the potential effects of the proposed project on biological resources that may occur as a result of project implementation. Direct, indirect, temporary, and/or permanent effects to biological resources may oc
cur as a result of project implementation, as defined below:



Direct Effects:

Any alteration, disturbance, or destruction of biological resources that would result from project
-
related activities is considered a direct effect. Examples include loss of indiv
idual species and/or their associated plant communities, diversion of surface water flows, and encroachment into wetlands. Under FESA, direct effects are defined as the immediate effects of a project on a species or its habitat, including construction nois e
disturbance, sedimentation, or habitat loss.



Indirect Effects:

Biological resources may also be affected in an indirect manner as a result of project
-
related activities. Under FESA, indirect effects are defined as those effects that are caused by, or wou
ld result from, a proposed project but occur later in time and are reasonably certain to occur [50 C.F.R. §402
-
02]. An example of indirect effects may include irrigation runoff from a developed area into surrounding natural vegetation. Indirect effects cou ld also
include increased wildfire frequency as a result of power line failures.



Temporary Effects:

Any effects to biological resources that are considered reversible can be viewed as temporary. Examples include the generation of fugitive dust during const ruction
activities.



Permanent Effects:

All effects that result in the irreversible removal of biological resources are considered permanent. Examples include constructing a building or permanent road on an area with native vegetation, such that the native
vegetation is permanently removed and
replaced with a developed structure.

A project is generally considered to have a significant effect if it proposes or results in any of the effects or
conditions described in the significance thresholds discussed below , absent specific
evidence to the contrary. Conversely, if a project does not propose or result in any of the following
effects or
conditions, it would generally not be considered to have a significant effect on biological resources, absent specific eviden
ce of such an effect. These significance thresholds
are taken from Appendix G of the State CEQA
Guidelines.

Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

5 -
2 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August

2022

5.2 Thresholds of Significance

Based on

State
CEQA Guidelines

Appendix

G
, the project would result in a significant impact on
biological resources if it

would:

1. 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 Departmen t of Fish and
Wildlife

or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.

2. 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 an
d
Wildlife

or U
.

S
.

Fish and Wildlife Service.

3. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means
.

4. 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.

5. Conflict with any local polici
es or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habita t conservation plan.

5.3 Impacts
Analysis

Issue

1: Would the proposed project 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 region
al plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife

or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Special
-
Status
Specie
s

S
pecial
-
status plant

and wildlife specie
s were
not
identified within

the project site during the
general proj
ect

survey

and,
according to Section 6.1.3
,

Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant
Species,
and 6.3.2
, Additional Survey Needs and Procedures

of the MSHCP, the project site does
not fall within a required
survey area for special
-
status plant

or wildlife specie
s

(including
Amphibian

Survey Area
, Burrowing Owl

Survey Area
, or

Mammal

Survey Area
)
with potential
to occur (Dudek 2003)
. Therefore,
with participation in the MSHCP (the City of
Riverside

is an
MSHCP permittee),
impacts to special
-
status plant

and wildli
fe specie
s would be considered
less
than significant
.

Critical Habitat

The project site does not occur within or immediately adjacent to critical habitat

for any special
-
status plant or wildlife species
; therefore, there would be
no impact
s to critical ha
bitat

as a result
of project activities.

Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

5 -
3 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August 2022

Issue

2: Would the proposed project 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 De
partment of Fish and
Wildlife

or U
.

S
.

Fish and Wildlife
Service?

No riparian or sensitive natural communities occur on the project site. As such, the proposed project would not have an impact on riparian or sensitive natural communities .

Issue

3: Would the

proposed project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

N
o
state or federally prot
ected

wetlands occur on
-
site

and therefore there will be no impacts to
state or federally protected wetlands
.

Issue

4: Would the
proposed project i
nterfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or wit h established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites ?

Wildlife Movement

A
s identified in Figure 3
-
2 ,

Schematic Cores and Linkages Map
,

of the MSHCP
,

w
ildlife
migration corridors
do not occur with
in the project site.

Thus,
n
o impact

to wildlife movement
and/or nursery sites is exp
ected as a result of project
development
.

Nesting Birds

The proposed project may result in the disturbance of nesting birds protected by the MBTA

and
CFGC 3503
,

3503.5
,

a
nd

3513
.

I
mpacts to nesting birds
would be
less than

significant

with
compliance with the federal and state regulations protecting nesting birds and their nest .

Issue

Would the
proposed project
conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance ?

There are no local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources that apply to the proposed project
.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances .

Issue

6: Would the
proposed project
conflict with
the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan
?

The project site is
located
within
the
W
estern Riverside County
MSHCP.

T
he
p
roject

site is not
located within
a

MSHCP Criteria Area
, which is comprised of
individual Cells or Cell Groups
identified
to guide assembly of Additional Reserve

Lands

for the MSHCP

Conservation Area
.

The local jurisdict
ions participating in the MSHCP
, such as the City of
Riverside
,

are

collectively
responsible for assembling

approximately 97,000 acres of land for the MSHCP Conservation Area.

L
ocal acquisition of lands for the MSHCP Conservation Area are purchased by the
Western
Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) from willing sellers using the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) process, or other processes, such as the Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

5 -
4 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August

2022

Joint Project/Acquisition Review

(JPR)

process during whic
h the
RCA and appropriate Permittee
staff

(
i.
e., City of
Riverside
)

shall jointly review

development applications that are within
a

Criteria Area and are submitted to
a

Permittee for consideration). However, since the project site is not located within
a

M
SHCP Criteria Area

and
is

therefore not subject to the

HANS process or
the JPR process, the
proposed p
roject would not conflict with
MSHCP
Reserve Assembly goals.

T
he
p
roject’s consistency with
the
MSHCP

is summarized below
.

The project site is not withi
n any
wildlife migration corridors identified in MSHCP Figure 3 -
2,
Schematic Cores and Linkages Map
.

With respect to the proposed project’s
consistency with MSHCP

Section 6.1.2 (Protection of
Species Associated with

Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool
s),
the

project site does not
contain

MSHCP riparian/riverine areas
and no riparian or riverine areas will be impacted
.

With respect to the proposed project’s consistency with MSHCP

Section 6.1.3 (Protection of
Narrow Endemic Plant

Species) and Section 6.

3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures), as
stated
within

the document, the project
site
is not located within
a

Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Survey Area as defined by Section 6.1.3,
n
or Amphibian Survey Area, Burrowing Owl Survey
Area, or Mammal Surv
ey Area as defined by Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.

Therefore, impacts to
narrow endemic plant species or
wildlife habitat would be covered through
payment of

the
appropriate
MSHCP

development fees
.

Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP specifies that certain guideline s should be implemented for proposed
projects located adjacent to or connected
with

existing conservation lands/lands described for
conservation within the MSHCP Conservation Area; these include Public/Quasi -
Public Land
(
PQP
)

Lands and conserved portions o
f the Criteria Area. The various guidelines include the management of site drainage/runoff and toxics/pollutants, grading, lighting, noise, invasive plant species, and wildlife barriers, to ensure that pre
-
project conditions are maintained during and
follo
wing the completion of construction, to the degree feasible.

However, t
he proposed project is
not situated within
, adjacent to, or connected with

PQP Lands, or the Criteria Area; therefore,
Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP does not apply

to this project, which w
ould be consistent
.

T
herefore,
as summarized above,
the proposed project would be consistent

with

the MSHCP
.

5.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures

No recommendations are required t
o minimize and avoid significant impacts to sensitive
biological

resources as a result of
proposed
project implementation

because there are no sensitive
biological resources that occur on the project site
.

5.5 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are defined as the direct and indirect effects of a proposed project which, when considered alone, would not be deemed a substantial impact, but when considered in addition to the impacts of related projects in the area, would be considered significant.

“Related
Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

5 -
5 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August 2022

projects” refers to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probabl e future projects, which would
have similar impacts to the proposed project.

CEQA deems a cumulative impact analysis to be
adequate if a list of “related projects” is included in the EIR or the proposed project is consistent with an adopted general, specif
ic, master, or comparable programmatic plan
(Section
15130(b)(1)(B))
.

CEQA also states that no further cumulative impact analysis is necessary for impacts of a proposed project consistent with an adopted general, specific, master, or comparable programmati
c plan [Section 15130(d)].

As discussed above, the project site consists of disturbed

or
developed areas with
in

developed
portion of the City of
Riverside
.

Furthermore, the MSHCP addresses cumulative impacts for western Riverside County.

The MSHCP identi
fies areas for long
-
term conservation and
management.

As such, with MSHCP compliance, cumulative impacts of proposed projects within authorized take lands within the MSHCP are minimized through the conservation of land.

Therefore, implementation of the pro
posed project, in conjunction with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources.

Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

5 -
6 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August

2022

This page intentionally left blank

1575 University Avenue Project

6 -
1 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August 2022

CHAPTER

6 References Cited

California Dep
artment of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018.

Protocols for Surveying and
Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities
.

_____
. 202
2 .

California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB)
.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps
-
and
-
Data
.

Accessed
July 20
, 2022.

Dudek & Associates

(Dudek)
. 2003.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
. Final MSHCP, Volumes I
and II. Prepared for County of
Riverside Transportation and Lands Management Agency, Prepared by Dudek & Associates, Inc. Approved June 17, 2003

Fahrig, L. and Merriam, G. 1985.

Habitat Patch Connectivity and Population Survival
. Ecology
66(6): 1762
-
1768.

Google

Earth Pro. 2022
.

Aerial Imagery
. Accessed

June 24, 2022
.

Harris, Larry D., and P.B. Gallagher. New initiatives for wildlife conservation: the need for movement corridors.

In Defense

of Wildlife: Preserving Communities and Corridors.

Washington, D.C.
: Defenders of Wildlife, 1989.

Hilty, J., W. Lidicker, Jr., and Merenlender, A. 2006. Corridor Ecology: The Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

NatureServe. 2022.

NatureServe
. https://www
.natureserve.org/

Noss, R. F. 1983. A Regional

Landscape Approach to Maintain Diversity. BioScience

33(11):
700
-
706.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler
-
Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009.

A Manual of California Vegetation, Second
Edition
. California Native Plant Society, Sac
ramento, CA. 1300 pp
.

Simberloff, D., Cox, J. 1987.

Consequences and Costs o
f Conservation Corridors.

Conservation
Biology 1: 63
-

71. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008a.

Arid West Supplement to the 1987 Wetlands
Delineation Manual
.

_____
.
2008b.

A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States
.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resourc
es Conservation Service (NRCS).
2022
.

NRCS Web Soil Survey
.

http://websoi
lsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed August 16
,
2022.

Biological
Assessment

Report

1575 University Avenue Project

6 -
2 ESA

D202200383.00

Biological Assessment Report

August

2022

U.S. Fish an
d Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022.

Critical Habitat Portal
.
htt
ps://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf 75b8dbfb77
:

Accessed
August 16
, 2022.

Appendix
A

Floral and Faunal Compendi
u
m

1 57
5 U
niversity
Ave
nue

Project

A
-
1 ESA

D
20 2
2 0
0 383
.00

Appendix
A

–

Floral & Faunal Compendia

Augu
st

202
2 APPENDIX
A

–

1575 UNIVERSITY AVEN
UE

PROJECT

Floral Compendium

Family

Scientific Name

Common Name

Nativity

Status

ANGIOSPERM
S

DICOTS

MARANTHACEAE
–

I
CE
P
L
ANT
F
AMILY

Amaranthus
a
lbus

p
igweed

amaranth

nat
ur
aliz
ed

NACARDIACEAE
–

UMAC OR
C
ASHEW
F
AMILY

Pistacia ch
inensis

Chinese pistac
hio

cultivate
d

STERACEAE
–

UNFLOWER
F
AMILY

Ambrosia psilostachya

ragweed

native

Baccharis
salicifolia

m
ule fat

native

Centaurea melitensis

tocalote

naturalize
d

L
actuca

serri
ola

p
r
ickly
lettuc
e

naturalized

E
ncelia fa
rinosa

b
rit
tlebush

native

Erigeron canadensis

Canada horseweed

native

H
elia
nthus annuus

c
ommon

sunflower

native

ORAGINACEAE
–

B
ORAGE
F
AMILY

C
r
yptantha

specie
s

p
opco
rn
flower

native

C
H
ENOPO
DI
ACEAE
–

OOSEFOOT

F
AMILY

C
hen
opodium albu
m

l
amb
’
s q
uarter
s

naturalized

S
a
l
sola

tragu
s

p
rickly
Ru
ssian this
tle

naturalized

RASSULACEAE
–

STONECROP
F
A
MILY

Ae
on
ium
arbore
u
m

t
ree
aeonium

cultivated

UPHORBIACEAE

–

SPURGE
F
AMILY

E
upho
rbia

hy
pericifolia

g
raceful
sandmat

naturalized

Euphorbia maculata

spotted spurge

naturalized

Euphorbia
pr
ostra
ta

p
rostra
te
sandmat

naturalized

ABACEAE
–

L
EGUME
F
AMILY

P
arkinson
ia acu
leata

M
exican

palo ver
de

c
ultivated

T
r
ifolium

h
i
r
t
u
m

r
ose
clover

n
at
ur
a
li
ze
d

AGACEAE

–

B
EECH
F
AMILY

Quercus agrifolia

c
oast live oak

native

G
E
RAN
IACEAE
–

G
E
RANIUM

F
AMILY

E
rodi
um

cicutari
a

r
ed
stemmed fila
ree

nat
u
ral
ized

L
Y
THR
ACEAE
–

L
OOS
TRIFE

F
AMILY

L
agers
t
roemia indi
ca

c
rapemy
rtle

cultivated

ALVACEAE

–

M
ALLOW
F
AMILY

B
ra
chychiton

po
pul
neum

w
h
ite
flower
k
urrajon
g

cultivated

M
alva par
viflora

c
h
ee
seweed
mall
ow

nat
u
ral
ized

APAVERACEAE

–

P
OPPY
F
AMILY

E
schscho
lzia californica

C
alifornia

poppy

nat
ive

P
I
TTOSP
OR
ACEAE
–

P
IT
TOS
POR
UM

F
AMILY

P
ittospo
rum tobira

m
ock

orange

c
ultivated

LATANACEAE
–
S

YCAMORE
F
AMILY

Platanus
x
hispanica

L
ondon p
lane tree

c
ultivated

1575 University Avenue
Project

Appendix
A

–

Floral &
Faunal Compendia

1 57
5 U
niversity
Ave
nue

Project

A
-
2 ESA

/
D20
2 2
0 0
3 83
.00

Appendix
A

–

Floral & Faunal Compendia

A
ugust

202
2 P

OLYGONACEAE
–

UCKWHEAT
F
AMILY

Eriogonum fasciculatum

California buckwheat

native

P
olygpnu
m

aviculare

P
r
ostate

native

ALICACEAE

–

W
ILLOW
F
AMILY

Salix
g
oodi
ngii

G
oodi
ng
’
s black

willow

native

S
A
PIND
A
CEAE
–

OAPBERRY

F
AMILY

Koelreuteria paniculata

goldenrain
tree

cultivated

S
C

ROPHULAR
I
ACEAE
–

F
IGWO
RT

F
AMILY

L
eucophyl
lum frut
escens

T
exas ran
ger

c
ulti
vat
ed

ERBENACEAE
–

V
ERBENA
F
AMILY

L
antana

m
on
tev
i
dens
is

t
rail
ing
lanata

c
ultiv
ated

Z
YGOPH
YLL
ACEAE
–

C
ALTROP

F
AMILY

T
r
ibulus
terres
tris

p
u
n
ct
ure
vine

na
t
u
r
aliz
ed

MONOCOTS

RECACEAE

–

P
ALM
F
AMILY

Washingtonia
f
ilife
ra

C
alifornia

fan palm

c
ulti
vat
ed

Washingtonia robusta

Mexican fan palm

naturalized

A
S
PHO
DEL
ACEAE
–

A
S
PHODE
L

F
AMILY

A
loe st
r
iata

c
oral
aloe

cultivat
ed

J
UN
C
ACEAE
–

R
USH

F
AMILY

J
uncus ba
l
ticus

B
a
ltic

rush

c
u
ltiv
at
ed

P
OACEAE

–

G
RASS
F
AMILY

Avena
fatua

wild oat

naturalized

Bromus rubens

red brome

naturalized

Cynodon dactylon

Bermuda
grass

cultivat
ed

H
ordeum murin
um

f
o
xtail
barley

naturalized

1575 University Avenue
Project

Appendi
x
A

–

Floral & Faunal Compendia

1 57
5 U
niversity
Ave
nue

Project

A
-
3 ESA

D
20 2
2 0
0 3
83 .00

Appendix

–

Floral & Faunal Compendia

A
ugu
st

202
2 APPENDIX
A

–

1575 UNIVERSITY AVEN

UE PROJECT

Faunal Compendium

Class

F
amily

Family
Common Name

Scientific Name

Common Name

Special
-
status?

B
IRDS

Tro
g
lody
t
idae

W
ren
s

T
ro
gl
odytes

aed
on

H
ouse
wren

Appendix
B

CNDDB
-

Special
-
Status Plant
and Wildlife Species

Species
Element Code
Federal Status
State Status
Global Rank
State Rank
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
ABPBXB0020
None
Threatened
G1G2
S1S2
SSC
Anniella stebbinsi
Southern California legless lizard
ARACC01060
None
None
G3
S3
SSC
Arenaria paludicola
marsh sandwort
PDCAR040L0
Endangered
Endangered
G1
S1
1B.1
Arizona elegans occidentalis
California glossy snake
ARADB01017
None
None
G5T2
S2
SSC
Aspidoscelis hyperythra
orange-throated whiptail
ARACJ02060
None
None
G5
S2S3
WL
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri
coastal whiptail
ARACJ02143
None
None
G5T5
S3
SSC
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
ABNSB10010
None
None
G4
S3
SSC
Berberis nevinii
Nevin's barberry
PDBER060A0
Endangered
Endangered
G1
S1
1B.1
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee
IIHYM24480
None
None
G2
S1S2
Calochortus plummerae
Plummer's mariposa-lily
PMLIL0D150
None
None
G4
S4

4.2 Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis
smooth tarplant
PDAST4R0R4
None
None
G3G4T2
S2
1B.1
Ceratochrysis longimala
Desert cuckoo wasp
IIHYM71040
None
None
G1
S1
Chaetodipus fallax fallax
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
AMAFD05031
None
None
G5T3T4
S3S4
SSC
Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum
salt marsh bird's-beak
PDSCR0J0C2
Endangered
Endangered
G4?T1
S1
1B.2
Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi
Parry's spineflower
PDPGN040J2
None
None
G3T2
S2
1B.1
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
western yellow-billed cuckoo
ABNRB02022
Threatened
Endangered
G5T2T3
S1
Crotalus ruber
red-diamond rattlesnake
ARADE02090
None
None
G4
S3
SSC
Dipodomys merriami parvus
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
AMAFD03143
Endangered
Candidate
Endangered
G5T1
S1
SSC
Dipodomys stephensi
Stephens' kangaroo rat
AMAFD03100
Threatened
Threatened
G2
S2
Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark
ABPAT02011
None
None
G5T4Q
S4
WL
Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Riverside East (3311783)) Query Criteria:

Report Printed on Thursday, August 18, 2022

Page 1 of 2 ends

Commercial Version -- Dated July, 31 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 1/31/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database

Species
Element Code
Federal Status
State Status
Global Rank
State Rank
Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Icteria virens
yellow-breasted chat
ABPBX24010
None
None
G5
S3
SSC
Lanius ludovicianus
loggerhead shrike
ABPBR01030
None
None
G4
S4
SSC
Lasiurus xanthinus
western yellow bat
AMACC05070
None
None
G4G5
S3
SSC
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus
California black rail
ABNME03041
None
Threatened
G3T1
S1
FP
Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii
Robinson's pepper-grass
PDBRA1M114
None
None
G5T3
S3

4.3 Lepus californicus bennettii
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
AMAEB03051
None
None
G5T3T4
S3S4
Nyctinomops femorosaccus
pocketed free-tailed bat
AMACD04010
None
None
G5
S3
SSC
Onychomys torridus ramona
southern grasshopper mouse
AMAFF06022
None
None
G5T3
S3
SSC
Perognathus longimembris brevinasus
Los Angeles pocket mouse
AMAFD01041
None
None
G5T2
S1S2
SSC
Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard
ARACF12100
None
None
G3G4
S3S4
SSC
Polioptila californica californica
coastal California gnatcatcher
ABPBJ08081
Threatened
None
G4G5T3Q
S2
SSC
Senecio aphanactis
chaparral ragwort
PDAST8H060
None
None
G3
S2
2B.2
Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland
Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland
CTT62400CA
None
None
G4
S4
Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
AAABF02020
None
None
G2G3
S3
SSC
Spinus lawrencei
Lawrence's goldfinch
ABPBY06100
None
None
G3G4
S4
Streptocephalus woottoni
Riverside fairy shrimp
ICBRA07010
Endangered
None
G1G2
S1S2
Taxidea taxus
American badger
AMAJF04010
None
None
G5
S3
SSC
Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell's vireo
ABPBW01114
Endangered
Endangered
G5T2
S2
Record Count: 38
Report Printed on Thursday, August 18, 2022

Page 2 of 2 ends

Appendix
C

S
ite Phot
ographs

APPENDIX
C

–

15 75 UNIV

ERSITY AVENUE,

RIVERSIDE

Site Photographs

C
-
1 Photo
g
raph

1 (
E
)
.

Photo
graph

depicts
t
he
existing b
uilding

fac
ing
University A
venue
.

Photo
g
raph

2 (
S
)
.

Photograph depicts
the
un
develop
ed

portion of the
project site

wi
th
the

existing bui
lding in
the

backg
round
.

1 575 University
Avenue, Ri
v
erside

Appendix
C

–
S
ite Pho
tographs

C
-
2 Photo
g
raph

3 (
N
)
.

Photo
graph

depicts

the
u
ndeveloped
no
r
t
hern
portion
of th
e

pro
ject site with

the ru
deral community
.

Photo
g
raph

4 (
N
W
)
.

Photo
graph

depicts

the ru
deral community

i
n
the
u
ndeveloped
no
r
t
hern
portion of th
e

pro
ject site with

a
djacent indu
strial
uses

alon
g northern property b
o
undary
.

Appendix D
Cultural Resources Assessment Report

For Public Distribution
1575 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PROJECT, CITY OF

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Cultural Resources Assessment Report

Prepared for November 2022
Kimley-Horn
660 S. Figueroa Street, Suite #2050
Los Angeles, CA 90017

For Public Distribution
1575 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PROJECT, CITY OF

RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Cultural Resources Assessment Report
Prepared for : November 2022
Kimley-Horn
660 S. Figueroa Street, Suite #2050
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Prepared by:

ESA
626 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Project Director :

Monica Strauss, M.A., RPA

Principal Investigator:

Sara Dietler, B.A.

Report Author :

Fatima Clark, B.A.

Project Location:

Riverside East (CA) USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quad
Township 2 South, Range 4 West, Section 19

Acreage : Approx. 4.29 acres

Assessor Parcel Numbers : 250-170-036

626 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213.599.4300
www.esassoc.com

Irvine
Los Angeles
Oakland
Orlando
Pasadena
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Santa Monica
Seattle
Tampa
Camarillo

OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.

1575 University Avenue Project I ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY

This report contains confidential cultural resources location information and distribution of this report is restricted. Cultural resources are nonrenewable, and their scientific, cultural, and aesthetic values can be significantly impaired by disturbance. To deter vandalism, artifact hunting, and other activities that can damage cultural resources, the locations of cultural resources are confidential. The legal authority to restrict cultural resources information is in subdivision (r) of Section 6254 and Section 6254.10 of the California Government Code, subdivision (d) of Section 15120 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and Section 9 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.

Statement of Confidentiality
1575 University Avenue Project II ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022

This page intentionally left blank

1575 University Avenue Project III ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1575 University Avenue Project - Cultural
Resources Assessment Report
Page
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... ES-1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 Project Location ............................................................................................................ 3 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 3 Setting .................................................................................................................................. 6 Natural Setting.............................................................................................................. 6 Prehistoric Setting ........................................................................................................ 6 Ethnographic Setting .................................................................................................. 10 Historic Setting ........................................................................................................... 13 Regulatory Framework ...................................................................................................... 14 State .......................................................................................................................... 14 Local .......................................................................................................................... 19 Archival Research ............................................................................................................. 24 EIC Records Search ................................................................................................... 24 Sacred Lands File Search .......................................................................................... 26 Historic Maps and Aerial Photographs ........................................................................ 26 Review of Phase I ESA .............................................................................................. 27 Geologic Map Review ................................................................................................. 30 Geotechnical Report Review ...................................................................................... 30 Cultural Resources Survey ............................................................................................... 32 Methods ..................................................................................................................... 32 Results ....................................................................................................................... 32 Significance/Eligibility Evaluation .................................................................................... 32 Approach .................................................................................................................... 32 Evaluation of Resources Identified Within the Project Site .......................................... 32 Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment .......................................................................... 33 Prehistoric Archaeological Analysis ............................................................................ 33 Historical Archaeological Analysis .............................................................................. 33 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................... 33 References ......................................................................................................................... 36

Table of Contents

Page
1575 University Avenue Project IV ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
Appendices
A. Personnel
B. Sacred Lands File Search
C. DPR Site Forms (Confidential Appendix)

List of Figures
Figure 1 Regional Map ......................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 Project Location ..................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3 1948 Historic Aerial .............................................................................................. 28 Figure 4 1959 Historic Aerial .............................................................................................. 29 Figure 5 Geologic Map ....................................................................................................... 31

List of Tables
Table 1 Previous Cultural Resources Investigations .......................................................... 25

1575 University Avenue Project 1 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1575 University Avenue Project - Cultural
Resources Assessment Report
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) has been retained by Kimley-Horn to conduct a cultural resources assessment for the 1575 University Avenue Project (Project). The Project would consist of the construction of a five-story at-grade mixed-use/residential buildings, an at-grade parking structure, a swimming pool and spa. The City of Riverside (City) is the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

A records search was conducted on July 22, 2022, by staff at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Eastern Information Center (EIC) housed at the University of California, Riverside and included a review of all recorded archaeological resources and previous studies within the Project Site and a 0.50-mile radius of the Project Site. The records search results indicate that 27 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a 0.50-mile radius of the Project Site. Approximately 50 percent of the 0.50-mile records search radius has been included in previous cultural resources assessments; however, none of these assessments have included the Project Site. No archaeological resources have been previously recorded within a

0.50-mile radius of the Project Site.

A Sacred Lands File (SLF) conducted by the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on August 4, 2022, indicated that the SLF search yielded negative results.

A cultural resources survey of the Project Site was conducted on July 20, 2022. Two built environment resources (FC-Site-1 and FC-Site-2) were identified as a result of the survey, and these were recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Site forms.

The built environment resources were evaluated to determine whether they were eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) criteria A, B, C, or D, California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) criteria 1, 2, 3 or 4 or local listings. California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The resources consist of concrete foundations and were found to be ineligible for consideration as potential historical resources under any California Register criteria 1, 2, 3 or 4. Therefore, Project impacts to these resources are not considered a significant impact to the environment under CEQA and no further analysis is necessary. The archaeological sensitivity assessment concluded that there is a low to moderate potential for encountering subsurface prehistoric archaeological resources. Since the Project includes ground disturbance, mitigation measures from the Riverside Housing and Public Safety Element Updates and Environmental Justice Policies Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) are provided in the Conclusions and Recommendations section at Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 2 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
the close of this report to reduce potential impacts to previously unknown archaeological resources and human remains to less than significant levels under CEQA.

Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 3 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
1575 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PROJECT
Cultural Resources Assessment Report
Introduction
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) has been retained by Kimley-Horn to conduct a cultural resources assessment for the 1575 University Avenue Project (Project). The Project proposes the construction of a five-story, at-grade mixed-use/residential buildings. The City of Riverside (City) is the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

ESA personnel involved in the preparation of this report are as follows: Monica Strauss, M.A., RPA., project director; Sara Dietler, B.A., Principal Investigator; Fatima Clark, B.A, report author and surveyor; and Jaclyn Anderson, GIS specialist. Resumes of key personnel are included in Appendix A.

Project Location
The 4.29-acre Project Site is located in the northeast portion of the City, in Riverside County, California (Figure 1). The Project Site is bordered by commercial uses to the north; University Avenue to the south; residential and commercial/retail properties to the east; and Seventh Street and commercial/retail properties to the west. The Project Site is located within Section 19 of Township 2 South, Range 4 West on the Riverside East, CA U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5- minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2).

Project Description
The Project would consist of the construction of a five-story, at-grade mixed-use/residential buildings, which would occupy the majority of the Project Site. An at-grade parking structure would be constructed in the central portion of the Project Site and a swimming pool and spa in the southern portion of the Project Site. Retaining walls (up to six feet high) are proposed to support excavations associated with the pit for the elevators. The existing building and parking lot in the southern portion, as well as the concrete pads in the vacant portion of the Project Site would be removed.

!^ Ø
Project Location

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

ORANGE COUNTY
UV60
§¨¦
5 §¨¦
210
§¨¦
15 §¨¦
215
§¨¦10
£¤395
UV18
UV31
UV138
UV66
UV241
UV30
UV330
UV74
UV91
UV73
UV210
UV71
UV60
Big Bear Lake
Lytle
Creek Wash
Prado Flood
Control Basin
Perris
Reservoir
Lake Matthews
Lee Lake
Lake Elsinore
Chino
Corona
Fontana
Hesperia
Moreno Valley
Ontario
Rancho Cucamonga
Redlands
Rialto
Riverside
Hemet
Mission Viejo
A n g e l e s
N a t i o n a l
F o r e s t
S a n B e r n a r d i n o
N a t i o n a l F o r e s t
C l e v e l a n d
N a t i o n a l
F o r e s t
Path: \\azr-file01\GIS_SHARE\GIS\GIS\Projects\2022xxx\D202200383_1575_University_Riverside\03_MXDs_Projects\Cultural\Fig1_RegionalLoc.mxd, janderson 7/27/2022 SOURCE: ESRI 1575 University Avenue
Figure 1
Regional Map
N
0 8
Miles
Ø
Project Area
Path: \\azr-file01\GIS_SHARE\GIS\GIS\Projects\2022xxx\D202200383_1575_University_Riverside\03_MXDs_Projects\Cultural\Fig2_Location.mxd, janderson 7/27/2022 SOURCE: USGS 7.5" Topoquad Riverside East
N
0 2,000
Feet
Project Site
1575 University Avenue
Figure 2
Project Location
Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 6 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
Setting
Natural Setting
The Project Site is rectangular-shaped and partially graded parcel. A one-story commercial building with a surface parking lot and associated landscaping occupies the southern portion of the Project Site, while the remaining north portion is currently vacant, but also has concrete pads associated with former structures. Access to the Project Site is via the southern portion and along University Avenue.

Prehistoric Setting
Prehistory is most easily discussed chronologically, in terms of environmental change and recognized cultural developments. Several chronologies have been proposed for inland Southern California, the most widely accepted of which is Wallace’s four-part Horizon format (1955) which was originally developed for the Southern California coastal region, and which was later updated and revised by Claude Warren (1968). The advantages and weaknesses of Southern California chronological sequences are reviewed by Warren (in Moratto 1984), Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984), and Heizer (1978). The following discussion is based on Warren (1968), Goldberg et al. (2001), Goldberg (2001), and the more recent Byrd and Raab (2007) sequence.

Paleo-Indian Period (ca. 14,000-10,000 years before present [YBP]) Little is known of Paleo-Indian peoples in inland Southern California, and the cultural history of this period follows that of North America in general. Recent discoveries in the Americas have challenged the theory that the first Americans migrated from Siberia, following a route from the Bering Strait into Canada and the Northwest Coast sometime after the Wisconsin Ice Sheet receded (ca. 14,000 YBP), and before the Bering Land Bridge was submerged (ca. 12,000 YBP).

Based on new research from the Pacific Rim, it has been proposed that modern humans settled islands of the eastern Pacific between 40,000 and 15,000 years ago. Evidence of coastal migration has also come from sites on islands off Alta and Baja California. As a result, these sites are contemporary with Clovis and Folsom points found in North America’s interior regions. All of these new findings have made the coastal migration theory gain credibility in recent times (Erlandson et al. 2007).

The timing, manner, and location of this crossing are a matter of debate among archaeologists, but the initial migration probably occurred as the Laurentide Ice Sheet melted along the Alaskan Coast and interior Yukon. The earliest radiocarbon dates from the Paleo-Indian Period in North America come from the Arlington Springs Woman site on Santa Rosa Island. These human remains date to approximately 13,000 YBP (Johnson, et al. 2002). Other early Paleo-Indian sites include the Monte Verde Creek site in Chile (Meltzer, et al. 1997) and the controversial Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania. Both sites have early levels dated roughly at 12,000 YBP. Lifeways during the Paleo-Indian Period was characterized by highly mobile hunting and gathering. Prey included megafauna such as mammoth and technology included a distinctive flaked stone toolkit that has been identified across much of North America and into Central America. They likely used some plant foods, but the Paleo-Indian toolkit recovered Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 7 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
archaeologically does not include many tools that can be identified as designed specifically for plant processing.

To date, no Paleoindian period sites have been identified in inland Southern California.

The megafauna that appear to have been the focus of Paleo-Indian life went extinct during a warming trend that began approximately 10,000 years ago, and both the extinction and climatic change (which included warmer temperatures in desert valleys and reduced precipitation in mountain areas) were factors in widespread cultural change. Subsistence and social practices continued to be organized around hunting and gathering, but the resource base was expanded to include a wider range of plant and game resources. Technological traditions also became more localized and included tools specifically for the processing of plants and other materials. This constellation of characteristics has been given the name “Archaic” and it was the most enduring of cultural adaptations to the North American environment.

Early Archaic Period/Early Holocene (ca. 10,000-8,000 YBP) The earliest Archaic Period life in inland Southern California has been given the name San Dieguito tradition, after the San Diego area where it was first identified and studied (Warren 1968). Characteristic artifacts include stemmed projectile points, crescents and leaf-shaped knives, which suggest a continued subsistence, focus on large game, although not megafauna of the earlier Paleo-Indian period. Milling equipment appears in the archaeological record at approximately 7,500 years ago (Moratto 1984:158). Artifact assemblages with this equipment include basin milling stones and unshaped manos, projectile points, flexed burials under cairns, and cogged stones, and have been given the name La Jolla Complex (7,500–3,000 YBP). The transition from San Dieguito life to La Jolla life appears to have been an adaptation to drying of the climate after 8,000 YBP, which may have stimulated movements of desert peoples to the coastal regions, bringing milling stone technology with them. Groups in the coastal regions focused on mollusks, while inland groups relied on wild-seed gathering and acorn collecting.

The earliest archaeological sites include resource CA-RIV-2798/H located on the shores of Lake Elsinore (approximately 21 miles south of the Project Site), which has been dated to approximately 8,500 years ago (Grenda 1997), and site CA-RIV-6069, found recently on the northeastern margin of the Lakeview Mountains approximately 18 miles southeast of the Project Site, dated to between 8,000 to 8,500 years ago (Horne 1998). Goldberg et al. (2001) suggest that the settlements of the populations exploiting the interior valleys, such as the Project Site, would have been located near drought-resistant water sources such as Lake Elsinore, Mystic Lake, and possibly the Cajalco Basin, and that that these locales may have been destination points on a scheduled, seasonal round.

Middle Archaic or Millingstone Period/Middle Holocene (ca. 8,000- 4,000 YBP)
In central and Southern California, “millingstone” cultures appeared around 8,000 to 7,000 YBP.

These cultures focused on the collection and processing of plant seeds and the hunting of a variety of medium and small game animals. The most common artifacts are manos and milling Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 8 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
stones (metates) and large core-cobble chopping tools. Other artifacts include hammerstones, large flake tools including scraper-planes and scrapers, worked bone, beads, cogged stones, discoidals, doughnut stones, and stone balls. Projectile points (usually large leaf-shaped points and Elko points) are not plentiful, but faunal remains indicate deer and rabbits were hunted. Sites near bays and estuaries contain abundant shell and fish remains (Byrd and Raab 2007).

In inland Southern California, archaeological investigations conducted by Applied Earthworks, Inc. at the Eastside Reservoir Project (ESRP) (now Diamond Valley Lake, located approximately 26 miles southeast of the Project Site) produced at least 19 archaeological localities dating to the Middle Archaic Period. These Middle Archaic components include residential bases and/or temporary camps containing abundant cultural materials including temporally diagnostic artifacts (e.g., Pinto and Silver Lake Projectile points, crescents), at least nine complex lithic scatters that appear to have functioned as resource extraction and processing sites, and one human burial covered with large rocks and ground stone artifacts. Moreover, the presence of isolated radiocarbon-dated features and/or sparse scatters of obsidian debitage dated by obsidian hydration methods suggests that ephemeral Middle Archaic use is present at several sites at ESRP. As a result of the ESRP investigations, researchers state that the more intensively used residential locations occur along alluvial fan margins, while less intensively used areas tend to be situated on arroyo bottoms or upland benches (Goldberg et al. 2001).

Late Archaic/Late Holocene (ca. 4,000-1,500 YBP)
Cultural responses to environmental changes around 4,000–3,000 YBP included a shift to more land-based gathering practices. This period was characterized by the increasing importance of acorn processing, which supplemented the resources from hunting and gathering. The period is characterized by the initial use of the mortar and pestle to process food stuffs such as seeds, acorns, and greens. Large Projectile points, including Elko points, indicate that hunting was probably accomplished with the atlatl or spear thrower. The settlement pattern may have been semi-sedentary with winter residential bases near a permanent water source and use of temporary camps for resource collection during the rest of the year.

At the ESRP Project Site, 23 archaeological localities show evidence that their primary use was during the Late Archaic Period, while 8 others yielded evidence of some activity during the period. Late Archaic site types documented within the ESRP Project Site include residential bases with large, diverse artifact assemblages, abundant faunal remains, and cultural features, as well as temporary bases, temporary camps, and task-specific activity areas. In general, sites showing evidence of the most intensive use tend to be on range-front benches adjacent to permanent water sources such as perennial springs or larger streams, while less intensively used locales occur either on upland benches or on the margins of active alluvial fans (Goldberg 2001).

Late Prehistoric Period/Late Holocene (ca. 1,500 YBP-A.D. 1769) The Late Prehistoric Period of inland Southern California is often separated into three time periods; Saratoga Springs (ca. 1,500-750 YBP), Late Prehistoric (ca. 750-400 YBP), and the Protohistoric (ca. 400 to 150 YBP) due to findings from the ESRP investigations and other Projects in region. In general, the bow and arrow is introduced at the beginning of the Late Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 9 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Prehistoric Period, which made hunting more efficient and productive while ceramics use was intensified after A.D. 1000. Many scholars believe that migrations occurring at this time resulted in new forms of social expression (such as cremations replacing inhumations) and in the creation of the linguistic and cultural landscape at European contact (Byrd and Raab 2007).

Some scholars have traditionally believed, based predominantly on linguistic data from ethnographic groups at European contact and archaeological data from coastal sites, that Shoshonean-speaking peoples from the deserts and Great Basin region of the western U.S. migrated into Southern California during this time period and replaced the existing groups in the area, although the precise timing of this migration is a matter of debate. However, current linguistic research contradicts this traditional theory of the “Shoshonean Wedge.” In particular, Campbell (1997) and Hill (2001) suggests that the Proto-Uto-Aztecan (PUA) homeland was somewhere in northern Mexico, western Arizona and eastern Southern California. The PUA group has generally been further divided into four subgroups: Hopic, Tubatulabalic, Takic and Numic. Luiseño, Gabrielino and Cahuilla are all language groups under the Takic umbrella.

Current linguistic and DNA evidence suggests that the separation of the PUA groups into these subgroups began between 5,000 and 3,500 YBP. Takic languages are estimated to be at least 2,500 years old which suggests that Takic speakers moved into their present homelands 1,000 years before the Numic speakers were in the Great Basin. Archaeologists use the "Shoshonean Wedge" theory to describe the southern descending movement of the Takic speakers (incorrectly identifying them as Shoshoneans) into Southern California; however, linguistic evidence does not support this hypothesis. Furthermore, evidence based upon linguistic and DNA data indicate the Takic speakers were forced to move out of the southern San Joaquin Valley area by a wave of Yokustan (Penutians) prior to 3,500 years B.P. Forced to move south, these Takic speakers began replacing, and intermarried with, non-Takic speakers within the Los Angeles basin, and by extension those peoples farther south, prior to 3,500 YBP (Sutton 2009). This new evidence contradicts the old theory of a “Shoshonean Wedge” and places the Takic speakers in California 1,000 years before the Numic speakers spread across the Great Basin.

The Medieval Climatic Anomaly (MCA) (1,050 to 600 B.P.) was a warmer drier period that occurred during the Late Prehistoric Period that may have resulted in more intensive use of resources and settlement in permanent villages near water sources in inland areas such as the San Jacinto Valley. As noted during the Late Archaic Period, important food resources for inland groups was acorns gathered from oak groves in canyons, drainages, and foothills. Acorn processing was labor intensive, requiring grinding in a mortar and leaching with water to remove tannic acid. Diagnostic artifacts include small triangular projectile points, mortars and pestles, steatite ornaments and containers, perforated stones, circular shell fishhooks, and numerous and varied bone tools, as well as bone and shell ornamentation. Elaborate mortuary customs, as well as generous use of asphaltum and the development of extensive trade networks, are also characteristic of this period.

Saratoga Springs Period (ca. 1,500-750 YBP) occupation was identified at seven site components within the ESRP Project Site, while three other sites exhibited evidence of ephemeral use at this time. Six other localities within the ESRP Project Site yielded either obsidian with hydration bands suggesting Saratoga Springs age or Saratoga Springs Projectile points (a large triangular Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 10 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
form associated with use of the bow and arrow, which began to appear in the ESRP Project Site at this time) but without evidence of sustained site use during this period. The focal shift of prehistoric activity from alluvial fan margins to mountain-front benches adjacent to permanent water sources, which was initiated during the Late Archaic, is also evidenced in the Saratoga Springs site locations (Goldberg 2001).

In San Diego County, Meighan (1954) identified the period after A.D. 1400 as the San Luis Rey complex. San Luis Rey I (A.D. 1400–1750) is associated with bedrock mortars and milling stones, cremations, small triangular projectile points with concave bases and Olivella beads. The San Luis Rey II (A.D. 1750–1850) period is marked by the addition of pottery, red and black pictographs, cremation urns, steatite arrow straighteners and non-aboriginal materials (Meighan 1954:223, Keller and McCarthy 1989:6). Work at Cole Canyon (located approximately 29 miles south of the Project Site) and other sites in Southern California suggests that this complex, and the ethnographically described life of the native people of the region, were well established by at least 1,000 YBP (Keller and McCarthy 1989:80).

Ethnographic Setting
According to early anthropologists and ethnographers, the Project Site is located on the fringes of cultural territories of the Cahuilla, Luiseno, Serrano, and Gabrielino (Gabrieleño, Tongva, or Kizh) groups.

Cahuilla
The Cahuilla spoke a language belonging to the Cupan group of the Takic subfamily (Bean 1978). The Cahuilla are generally divided into three groups based on their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla of the Beaumont/Banning area; the Mountain Cahuilla of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains; and the Desert Cahuilla from the Coachella Valley, as far south as the Salton Sea. The Cahuilla occupied territories that ranged from low or moderately low desert to the mountain regions of the Transverse and Peninsular ranges.

Villages were placed near canyons that received substantial precipitation or were adjacent to streams and springs (Bean 1978). House structures of the Cahuilla ranged from “brush shelters to dome-shaped or rectangular structures 15-20 feet long” (Bean 1978). The Cahuilla social structure revolved around clans and exogamous moieties (components connected through inter- marriage). Hunting, in conjunction with the exploitation of a variety of available resources, governed the Cahuilla subsistence strategy. The material culture of the Cahuilla was extensive and varied, and included pottery, ornamental items, and a number of knapped stone tools.

Prior to European contact, population estimates for the Cahuilla range from 3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons. Due to European diseases, such as smallpox, the Cahuilla population was decimated during the 19
th century. However, unlike other Native American populations in southern California, the Cahuilla were able to retain their autonomy even after the arrival and increasing control of European explorers and the settling governments that followed. It was not until 1891 that the Cahuilla culture and its population began to succumb to the pressure of European and, later, United States governing bodies (Bean 1978).

Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 11 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Today, there are nine federally recognized tribes in California who share Cahuilla tribal affiliation, language, and culture, including the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (Agua Caliente), Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians (Augustine), Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (Cabazon), Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians, Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeño Indians (Los Coyotes), Morongo Band of Mission Indians (Morongo), Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians (Ramona), Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians (Santa Rosa), and Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians (Torres-Martinez).

Luiseño
Native Americans living in the Project area at the time of Spanish contact are now known as the Luiseño, after the Mission San Luis Rey to which many of them were relocated. The language of the Luiseño people has been identified as belonging to the Cupan group of the Takic subfamily, which is part of the larger Uto-Aztecan language family (Bean and Shipek, 1978). Luiseño territory includes portions of northern San Diego, southern Orange, and Riverside Counties, and would have encompassed a diverse environment including lagoons and marshes, coastal areas, inland river valleys, foothills, and mountains. The neighbors of the Luiseño to the north and northwest were the Juaneño, Gabrielino, and Serrano; to the east were the Cahuilla and Cupeño; and to the south were the Kumeyaay.

The Luiseño subsisted on small game, coastal marine resources, and a wide variety of plant foods such as grass seeds and acorns. Luiseño houses were conical thatched reed, brush, or bark structures. The Luiseño inhabited permanent villages centered around patrilineal clans, with each village headed by a chief, or not (Kroeber, 1925; Sparkman, 1908). Seasonal camps associated with villages were also used. Each village or clan had an associated territory and hunting, collecting, and fishing areas. Villages were typically located in proximity to a food or water source, or in defensive locations, often near valley bottoms, streams, sheltered coves or canyons, or coastal strands (Bean and Shipek, 1978). It is estimated that there may have been around 50 Luiseño villages with a population of about 200 each at the time of the first Spanish contact (Bean and Shipek, 1978).

Today, there are six federally recognized tribes in California who share Luiseño tribal affiliation, language, and culture, including the La Jolla Band of Luiseño Indians (La Jolla), Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (Rincon), Pauma Yuima Band of Mission Indians (Pauma), Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians (Pechanga), Pala Band of Mission Indians (Pala), and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians (Soboba).

Serrano
The Serrano occupied territories that ranged from low or moderately low desert to the mountain regions of the Transverse and Peninsular ranges bordered to the west roughly by the Cajon Pass in the San Bernardino Mountains, to the east by Twenty-Nine Palms, and to the south by Yucaipa Valley. The Serrano inhabited areas both north and south of the San Bernardino Mountains, and also encompassed the western end of the Mojave Desert (including Lovejoy Springs) in portions of Los Angeles County (Price et al. 2008). The Serrano were organized into clans, with the clan being the largest autonomous political entity. They lived in small villages where extended Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 12 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
families lived in circular, dome-shaped structures made of willow frames covered with tule thatching. Each clan had one or more principal villages in addition to numerous smaller villages associated with the principal village (Price et al, 2008). Villages located at higher elevations were placed near canyons that received substantial precipitation or were adjacent to streams and springs. Villages situated at lower elevations were also located close to springs or in proximity to the termini of alluvial fans where the high water table provided abundant mesquite and shallow wells could be dug.

The Serrano subsistence strategy relied upon hunting and gathering, and occasionally fishing.

Villages divided into smaller, mobile gathering groups during certain seasons to gather seasonally available foods. The division of labor was split between women gathering and men hunting and fishing (Bean and Smith 1978, Warren 1984). Mountain sheep, deer, rabbits, acorns, grass seeds, piñon nuts, bulbs, yucca roots, cacti fruit, berries, and mesquite were some of the more common resources utilized (Bean and Smith 1978, Warren 1984). Despite early European and Spanish contact in 1771, the Serrano remained relatively autonomous until the period between 1819 and 1834 when most of the western Serrano were forcibly removed and relocated to missions (Bean and Smith 1978, Warren 1984).

Gabrielino
According to Bean and Smith (1978), the Gabrielino, with the exception of the Chumash to the north, “were the wealthiest, most populous, and most powerful ethnic nationality in aboriginal Southern California.” Named after the San Gabriel Mission, the Gabrielino occupied sections of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino counties, and the islands of San Nicolas, Santa Catalina, and San Clemente. The Gabrielino subsisted on a variety of resources in several ecological zones. Acorns, sage, and yucca were gathered throughout the inland areas whereas shellfish, fish, as well as a variety of plants and animals were exploited within the marshes and along the coast. Deer and various kinds of small mammals were hunted on an opportunistic basis.

Their material culture reflected the subsistence technology. Lithic tools such as arrow points and modified flakes were used to hunt and process animals. A variety of ground stone grinding implements, such as the mortar, pestle, mano, and metate, were used to process both plant and animal remains for food (Bean and Smith, 1978).

The settlement patterns of the Gabrielino, and other nearby groups such as the Juaneño and Luiseño, were similar and they often interacted through marriage, trade and warfare. The seasonal availability of water and floral and faunal resources dictated seasonal migration rounds with more permanent villages and base camps being occupied primarily during winter and spring months. In the summer months, the village populations divided into smaller units that occupied seasonal food procurement areas. The more permanent settlements tended to be near major waterways and food sources and various secular and sacred activities, such as food production and storage and tool manufacturing, were conducted at these areas (Bean and Smith, 1978).

Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 13 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Historic Setting
Spanish Period (1769-1821)
The first European presence in what is now southern California came in 1542, when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo led an expedition along the coast. Europeans did not return until 1769, when the expedition of Gaspar de Portola traveled overland from San Diego to San Francisco. Juan Bautista de Anza was the first recorded European visitor to the area. He is credited with the discovery of an inland route from Sonora to the northern coast of California in 1774, bringing him through much of what is now known as Riverside County, via the San Jacinto Mountains (Rolle 2003). With de Anza, the colonization of Alta California began in earnest. With the opening of the overland route, Spanish pueblos were established, evolving into the Spanish system of governance.

In the late 18th century, the Spanish began establishing missions in California and forcibly relocating and converting native peoples (Horne and McDougall 2003). The purpose of the missions was to encourage, by any means necessary, the assimilation of Native populations to adopt the Spanish custom, language, and religion. The mission strategy relied upon an agricultural economy and as such, locations selected for the construction of a mission depended upon three factors: arable soil for crops, an adequate supply of fresh water, and a large local Indian population for labor (Rolle 2003). The closest missions to the Project Site are Mission San Juan Capistrano (located approximately 37 miles southwest of the Project Site) and Mission San Gabriel Arcangel (located approximately 44 miles northwest of the Project Site).

Mexican Period (1821-1846)
In 1821 Mexico, which included much of present-day California, became independent from Spain, and during the 1820s and 1830s the California missions were secularized. Mission property was supposed to have been held in trust for the Native Californians, but instead was handed over to civil administrators and then into private ownership as land grants. After secularization, many former Mission Indians were forced to leave the Missions and seek employment as laborers, ranch hands, or domestic servants (Horne and McDougall 2003).

American Period (1846-Present)
In 1846, the Mexican-American War broke out. Mexican forces were eventually defeated in 1847 and Mexico ceded California to the United States as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo in 1848. California officially became one of the United States in 1850. While the treaty recognized the right of Mexican citizens to retain ownership of land granted to them by Spanish or Mexican authorities, the claimant was required to prove their right to the land before a patent was given.

The process was lengthy and generally resulted in the claimant losing at least a portion of their land to attorney’s fees and other costs associated with proving ownership (Starr 2007).

When the discovery of gold in northern California was announced in 1848, a huge influx of people from other parts of North America flooded into California. As a result of the discovery of gold and the mass migration of fortune hunters to both southern and northern California, the population of the region exploded, and development of urban areas grew. The transcontinental Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 14 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
railroad came to the region in 1869, bringing industry and settlers to the area; the city of Riverside became the first of these colonized areas in what is now Riverside County. Cattle ranches were slowly replaced by citrus farming and agriculture, industries of major importance to the populace of the area now known as Riverside County.

Project Site History
The Project Site is located within the Eastside Neighborhood which is one of the City’s oldest neighborhoods which has been a part of the City since its founding in 1870. The Eastside Neighborhood is located within the eastern portion of the City of Riverside, with the center of Downtown to the west and University of Riverside to the east. University Avenue is one of two main east-west thoroughfares, Martin Luther King Boulevard/14th Street is the other. The early development was related to worker housing for the booming citrus industry and even as citrus declined over time the Eastside remained home to much of the City’s working families. In the 1880s the Gage Canal brought water to the area and included underground pipes carrying water from the canal to White’s Addition, the oldest part of the Eastside Neighborhood. By the 1920s there was established commercial areas on University Avenue (then known as East Eighth Street).

Eighth Street/University Avenue has historically been the main corridor running east west through the heart of the Eastside. Land use was predominantly residential until the end of the 1920 when it became a general Commercial Zone and single family residences gave way to restaurants, motels, service stations and car washes. Today the Eastside does remain largely residential but large scale residential developed stopped in the late 1950s due to less available land (City of Riverside, 2009).

Regulatory Framework
State
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects occurring in the state and is codified at Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment, including significant effects on historical or unique archaeological resources.

Under CEQA
(Section 21084.1), a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

The CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15064.5) recognize that historical resources include: (1) a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register); (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); and (3) any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California by the lead agency, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The fact that a Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 15 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
resource does not meet the three criteria outlined above does not preclude the lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of Section 21084.1 of CEQA and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines apply. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria for a historical resource contained in the CEQA Guidelines, then the site may be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083, which is as a unique archaeological resource. As defined in Section 21083.2 of CEQA a “unique” archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site, about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;
• Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or,
• Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

If an archaeological site meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site is to be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2, which state that if the lead agency determines that a project would have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place (Section 21083.1(a)). If preservation in place is not feasible, mitigation measures shall be required. The CEQA Guidelines note that if an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor a historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)).

A significant effect under CEQA would occur if a project results in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a).

Substantial adverse change is defined as “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1)). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2), the significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that:

A. Convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or
B. Account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 16 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or C. Convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as determined by a Lead Agency for purposes of CEQA.

In general, a project that complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Standards) (Grimmer, 2017) is considered to have mitigated its impacts to historical resources to a less-than-significant level (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3)).

California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the State and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Section 5024.1[a]). The criteria for eligibility for the California Register are based upon National Register criteria (PRC Section 5024.1[b]). Certain resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register.

To be eligible for the California Register, a prehistoric or historic-period property must be significant at the local, state, and/or federal level under one or more of the following four criteria:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

A resource eligible for the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above, and retain enough of its historic character or appearance (integrity) to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason for its significance. It is possible that a historic resource may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but it may still be eligible for listing in the California Register.

Additionally, the California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically includes the following:
• California properties listed on the National Register and those formally determined eligible for the National Register;
Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 17 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
• California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward; and, • Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the OHP and have been recommended to the State Historical Commission for inclusion on the California Register.

Other resources that may be nominated to the California Register include:
• Historical resources with a significance rating of Category 3 through 5 (those properties identified as eligible for listing in the National Register, the California Register, and/or a local jurisdiction register);
• Individual historical resources;
• Historical resources contributing to historic districts; and, • Historical resources designated or listed as local landmarks, or designated under any local ordinance, such as an historic preservation overlay zone.

California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event human remains are discovered, the County Coroner be contacted to determine the nature of the remains. In the event the remains are determined to be Native American in origin, the Coroner is required to contact the NAHC within 24 hours to relinquish jurisdiction.

California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
California PRC Section 5097.98, as amended, provides procedures in the event human remains of Native American origin are discovered during project implementation. PRC Section 5097.98 requires that no further disturbances occur in the immediate vicinity of the discovery, that the discovery is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural and archaeological standards, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. PRC Section 5097.98 further requires the NAHC, upon notification by a County Coroner, designate and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) regarding the discovery of Native American human remains. The MLD has 48 hours from the time of being granted access to the site by the landowner to inspect the discovery and provide recommendations to the landowner for the treatment of the human remains and any associated grave goods.

In the event that no descendant is identified, or the descendant fails to make a recommendation for disposition, or if the land owner rejects the recommendation of the descendant, the landowner may, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains and burial items on the property in a location that will not be subject to further disturbance.

California Government Code Sections 6254(r) and 6254.10 These sections of the California Public Records Act were enacted to protect archaeological sites from unauthorized excavation, looting, or vandalism. Section 6254(r) explicitly authorizes public agencies to withhold information from the public relating to “Native American graves, Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 18 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
cemeteries, and sacred places maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission.” Section 6254.10 specifically exempts from disclosure requests for “records that relate to archaeological site information and reports, maintained by, or in the possession of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Historical Resources Commission, the State Lands Commission, the Native American Heritage Commission, another state agency, or a local agency, including the records that the agency obtains through a consultation process between a Native American tribe and a state or local agency.”
Assembly Bill 52 and Related Public Resources Code Sections Assembly Bill (AB) 52 was approved by California State Governor Edmund Gerry “Jerry” Brown, Jr. on September 25, 2014. The act amended California PRC Section 5097.94, and added PRC Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3.

AB 52 applies specifically to projects for which a Notice of Preparation (NOP) or a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) will be filed on or after July 1, 2015. The primary intent of AB 52 was to include California Native American Tribes early in the environmental review process and to establish a new category of resources related to Native Americans that require consideration under CEQA, known as tribal cultural resources. PRC Section 21074(a)(1) and (2) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe” that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register or included in a local register of historical resources, or a resource that is determined to be a tribal cultural resource by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence. On July 30, 2016, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted the final text for tribal cultural resources update to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which was approved by the Office of Administrative Law on September 27, 2016.

PRC Section 21080.3.1 requires that within 14 days of a lead agency determining that an application for a project is complete, or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency provide formal notification to the designated contact, or a tribal representative, of California Native American Tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project (as defined in PRC Section 21073) and who have requested in writing to be informed by the lead agency (PRC Section 21080.3.1(b)). Tribes interested in consultation must respond in writing within 30 days from receipt of the lead agency’s formal notification and the lead agency must begin consultation within 30 days of receiving the tribe’s request for consultation (PRC Sections 21080.3.1(d) and 21080.3.1(e)).

PRC Section 21080.3.2(a) identifies the following as potential consultation discussion topics: the type of environmental review necessary; the significance of tribal cultural resources; the significance of the project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources; project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation; and mitigation measures. Consultation is considered concluded when either: (1) the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or (2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached (PRC Section 21080.3.2(b)).

Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 19 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
If a California Native American tribe has requested consultation pursuant to Section 21080.3.1 and has failed to provide comments to the lead agency, or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process, or if the lead agency has complied with Section 21080.3.1(d) and the California Native American tribe has failed to request consultation within 30 days, the lead agency may certify an EIR or adopt an MND (PRC Section 21082.3(d)(2) and (3)).

PRC Section 21082.3(c)(1) states that any information, including, but not limited to, the location, description, and use of the tribal cultural resources, that is submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public without the prior consent of the tribe that provided the information. If the lead agency publishes any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process, that information shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public.

Local
City of Riverside
The City of Riverside’s General Plan (2025) has several objectives and policies geared towards the preservation of archaeological resources and these are provided below:

Objective HP-1: To use historic preservation principles as an equal component in the planning and development process.

Policy HP -1.3: The City shall protect sites of archaeological and paleontological significance and ensure compliance with all applicable State and federal cultural resources protection and management laws in its planning and project review process.

Objective HP-2: To continue an active program to identify, interpret and designate the City's cultural resources.

Policy HP-2.1: The City shall actively pursue a comprehensive program to document and preserve historic buildings, structures, districts, sites (including archaeological sites), objects, landscapes, and natural resources.

Policy HP-2.3: The City shall provide information to citizens, and the building community about what to do upon the discovery of archaeological resources and burial sites, as well as, the treatment, preservation, and repatriation of such resources.

Riverside Housing and Public Safety Element Updates and Environmental Justice Policies Project CUL-1: Conduct a historical resource assessment. The individual applicants shall hire a Secretary of the Interior qualified historic preservation professional to conduct a historical resource assessment if a structure to be affected by a subsequent development project, at the time of application, is not in a previously surveyed area, is not a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA, and is at least 50 years old. The assessment shall formally evaluate the potential resource’s eligibility for listing to the CRHR, its potential eligibility as a Landmark or Structure of Merit, and its potential eligibility as a Contributor to a Historic District or Neighborhood Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 20 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
Conservation Area. If the resource is found eligible for any of those designations, it shall be considered a resource that qualifies as a historical resource under CEQA and is therefore subject to the provisions of the Cultural Resources Ordinance. This includes obtaining the pertinent Certificates of Appropriateness and ensuring that the project plans adhere to the SOI Standards.

For resources found ineligible for any of those designations, no additional mitigation would be necessary.

CUL-2: Conduct an archaeological study. For Opportunity Site development projects that require CEQA analysis (non-ministerial projects), prior to construction, and if it is determined that the development project will involve ground disturbance of some type, the applicant shall conduct an archaeological study. This study will be conducted during project specific CEQA analyses at Opportunity Sites that have not been studied in such a manner in the previous 5 years.

The archaeological study shall follow the guidelines set forth by the City of Riverside Community & Economic Development Department in the document titled Consultant Requirements for Cultural Resources Survey, Studies and Reports Information Sheet (City of Riverside Community & Economic Development Department 2011) or successor document.

The cultural resources archaeological recommendations shall be valid for 5 years after the date of the record search. After 5 years, the applicant shall retain an archaeologist who shall acquire an updated record search from the Eastern Information Center and review the cultural resources technical report recommendations.

For proposed development locations where only a record search and/or a site visit have already been conducted prior to this EIR, the project applicant shall retain an archaeologist to:
• Review record search results, site visit results, and any recommendations. • Obtain an updated record search from the Eastern Information Center if the record search is older than 5 years.
• Review available historic maps, historic aerials, and other archival materials. • Prepare a cultural resources memo with existing or updated record search results; a summary of background research of historic maps, aerials, etc.; and potential for historic and prehistoric archaeological resources to be present at the proposed development location.

Additionally, the memo shall identify potential impacts and provide recommendations.

The City shall review these findings and make a determination regarding the significance of project-level impacts prior to approval of any future development. Should the archaeological study result in the identification of archaeological resources on the proposed development site, or should unanticipated discoveries of previously unknown archaeological resources be made during ground disturbing activities at an Opportunity Site, Mitigation Measures MMCUL-3 through MM-CUL-6 would be applicable.

CUL-3: Avoid archaeological sites through establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). If archaeological resources are identified either through an archaeological study or as unanticipated discoveries during construction, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM- Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 21 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
CUL-3 would be required. Avoidance is always the preferred method of treatment for archaeological sites. Additionally, should sacred objects or objects of religious importance to Native American tribes be identified, preservation in place avoids conflicts with traditional values of tribes who ascribe meaning to these resources and their locations. Impacts on cultural resources can be avoided through establishing fencing around cultural resources with a buffer and delineating these locations as ESAs. The appropriate buffer size shall be delineated upon consultation with Native American tribes and the City (for prehistoric resources). The City and the consultant archaeologist for individual development projects shall determine appropriate buffers for historical-period (non-Native American) archaeological resources on a case-by-case basis based on the known extent of archaeological sites and the relationship to proposed ground disturbance.

CUL-4: Develop and implement an Archaeological Treatment Plan (ATP) for evaluation of newly discovered and/or unevaluated archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure MM- CUL-4 shall apply as follows:
• The results of an archaeological study conducted under Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2 are unable to determine the eligibility of newly identified archaeological sites for inclusion to the CRHR and it is determined by the consulting archaeologist that additional study through Phase II testing is required;
• It is not possible to avoid impacts through the establishment of ESAs; or • Unanticipated archaeological resources are discovered during construction on Opportunity Sites.

If it is necessary to properly evaluate such properties in such a manner, an ATP shall be developed that describes methods and procedures for conducting subsurface excavations to determine the vertical and horizontal extents of an archaeological site. The ATP shall define the parameters of archaeological testing at the site and the extent of excavation and analysis of any materials recovered. The ATP shall also include guidelines for treatment and curation of any materials recovered during the testing process. Subsequent to implementation of the ATP, a technical report describing the methods and results of archaeological testing and formal evaluations of the archaeological sites and recommendations for further treatment shall be completed. The ATP shall be approved by the City and should involve consultation and review by Native American tribes consulting on the proposed development project. An ATP shall only be necessary for newly discovered archaeological sites that require additional information to make determinations of eligibility.

CUL-5: Implement data recovery for CRHR-eligible sites that cannot be avoided. If archaeological studies identify a cultural resource as being potentially eligible for listing in the CRHR and ESAs cannot be established or project design cannot be altered, resulting in impacts on the site, then a Phase III data recovery program shall be developed, when mutually agreed upon by Native American representatives (for prehistoric or historic-period Native American sites) and the City. The data recovery program shall be outlined in a Data Recovery Treatment Plan that details the procedures and objectives for mitigation of impacts on the archaeological Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 22 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
site. The Data Recovery Treatment Plan shall include a research design with testable hypotheses and data requirements necessary to address these hypotheses. Additionally, the Data Recovery Treatment Plan shall identify methods of excavation, analysis, and curation of any archaeological materials recovered. The Data Recovery Treatment Plan shall also identify the treatment of any human remains discovered during data recovery procedures. If the archaeological resource is Native American (prehistoric or historic-period in age), then the City, the applicant, and the archaeologist shall engage in consultation so that Native American representatives can be involved in the development of the data recovery plan. Data recovery shall involve analysis of a representative sample of the materials recovered during excavation. For prehistoric archaeological sites, all excavations should be monitored by a representative from a geographically appropriate Native American group. At the conclusion of the data recovery program, a data recovery technical report shall be completed detailing the results of the excavations and analysis. Curation of recovered archaeological materials shall be conducted per the guidance in the Data Recovery Treatment Plan and with consultation between the City and appropriate Native American tribes. Other forms of mitigation could include additional research with archival sources, landscape studies, designation of open space, public outreach programs, and public education/public displays.

CUL-6: Retain an on-call archaeologist for monitoring. For Opportunity Site development projects that require CEQA analysis, Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-6 shall be implemented when archaeological studies completed under Mitigation Measure MMCUL- 2 determine that a project has a less-than-significant potential for archaeological discoveries. Additionally, upon agreement between Native American representatives (for prehistoric or historic-period Native American sites) and the City for archaeological resources that have not been determined eligible for listing in the CRHR or NRHP that are unavoidable at an Opportunity Site, Mitigation Measure MM- CUL-6 shall be implemented. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide a letter from a qualified archaeologist stating that the applicant has retained their services, and that the archaeologist shall be on call during all grading and other significant ground- disturbing activities in native sediments.

CUL-7: Conduct archaeological and Native American monitoring. If cultural resource studies have identified archaeological resources determined eligible for the CRHR or NRHP that are unavoidable at an Opportunity Site, Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-7 shall be implemented upon agreement among Native American representatives (for prehistoric or historic-period Native American sites). At least 30 days prior to application for a grading permit and before any grading, excavation, and/or ground-disturbing activities take place, the applicant shall retain an SOI Standards–qualified archaeological monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. The archaeologist, in consultation with consulting tribes, the applicant, and the City, shall develop an Archaeological Monitoring Plan to address the details, timing, and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural activities that occur on a development site. Details in the plan shall include:

1. Project grading and development scheduling:
a. The development of a rotating or simultaneous schedule in coordination with the applicant and the project archaeologist for designated Native American tribal monitors (if Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 23 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
resources are prehistoric in age) from the consulting tribes during grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities on the site, including the scheduling, safety requirements, duties, scope of work, and Native American tribal monitors’ authority to stop and redirect grading activities in coordination with all project archaeologists b. The protocols and stipulations that the applicant, tribes, and project archaeologist for the individual development project shall follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resource discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation
c. Treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains if discovered on a development site
d. The scheduling and timing of the Cultural Sensitivity Training CUL-8: Employ procedures for treatment and disposition of cultural resources. If cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of grading for individual Opportunity Sites, the following procedures shall be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

1. Consulting Tribe(s) Notified: Within 24 hours of discovery, and if the resources are Native American in origin, the consulting tribe(s) shall be notified via email and phone. The applicant shall provide the City evidence of notification to consulting tribes. Consulting tribe(s) shall be allowed access to the discovery in order to assist with the significance evaluation.

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

3. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and non- human remains, as part of the required mitigation for impacts on cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Riverside Community & Economic Development Department with evidence of same:
a. Accommodate the process for onsite reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing and basic recordation have been completed.
b. Execute a curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository within Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore will ensure professional curation and availability to other archaeologists/researchers for further study.

Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 24 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
c. If more than one Native American tribe or band is involved with the subsequent development project and cannot come to a consensus as to the disposition of cultural materials, curate the discovered items at the Western Science Center or Museum of Riverside by default.
d. At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities on the site, provide to the City a Phase IV Monitoring Report documenting monitoring activities conducted by the project archaeologist and Native American tribal monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts on the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required Cultural Sensitivity Training for the construction staff held during the required pre-grade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced shall be submitted to the City, the Eastern Information Center, and consulting tribes.

CUL-9: Conduct cultural sensitivity training. For Opportunity Site development projects where either Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-6 or MM-CUL-7 are implemented, Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-9 shall also be implemented. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the SOI Standards– certified archaeologist and Native American monitors shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the applicant/permit holder’s contractors to provide Cultural Sensitivity Training for all construction personnel. This shall include the procedures to be followed during ground disturbance in sensitive areas and protocols that apply in the event unanticipated resources are discovered. Only construction personnel who have received this training can conduct construction and disturbance activities in sensitive areas. A sign-in sheet for attendees of this training shall be included in the Phase IV Monitoring Report.

Archival Research
EIC Records Search
A records search for the Project was conducted on July 22, 2022, by staff at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Eastern Information Center (EIC) housed at University of California, Riverside. The records search included a review of all recorded archaeological resources and previous studies within the Project Site and a 0.50-mile radius of the Project Site.

Previous Cultural Resources Investigations
The records search results indicate that 27 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a 0.50-mile radius of the Project Site (Table 1). Approximately 50 percent of the 0.50-mile records search radius has been included in previous cultural resources assessments. Of the 27 previous studies, none have previously included the Project Site.

Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 25 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
TABLE 1

PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS
Author EIC# Title Year
Malcolm J. Rogers RI-00018 Miscellaneous Field Notes - Riverside County. San Diego Museum of Man
1953
B.E. Mc Gown RI-00026 Report of Archaeological Survey: Temecula Flood Control Basin, Temecula, California
1948
B.E Mc Gown RI-01955 Report Of Archaeological Survey, Pauba Flood Control Basin, Temecula, California
1948
Margie Akin RI-02059 A Survey of the Archaeological Resources of the Santa Ana and San Jacinto River Basins
1971
Heller, Rod, Tim
Tetherow, And C. White
RI-02344 An Overview Of The Sun Desert Nuclear Project Transmission System Cultural Resource Investigation
1977
Peak And Associates RI-03190 Part III, Addendum To: Cultural Resources Assessment Of AT&T's Proposed San Bernardino To San Diego Fiber Optic Cable, San Bernardino, Riverside, And San Diego Counties, California 1990
Carleton S. Jones RI-03604 The Development of Cultural Complexity Among the Luiseno: A Thesis Presented to the Department of Anthropology, California State University, Long Beach in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree, Master of Arts
1992
Wlodarski, Robert J. RI-03605 Draft Report: An Archaeological Survey Report Documenting The Effects Of The RCIC I-215 Improvement Project In Moreno Valley, Riverside County, To Orange Show Road In The City Of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California.
1993
Foster, John M., James J.

Schmidt, Carmen A.

Weber, Gwendolyn R.

Romani, And Roberta S.

Greenwood
RI-03693 Cultural Resource Investigation: Inland Feeder Project, Metropolitan Water District Of Southern California
1991
Jones And Stokes
Associates, Inc.

RI-04404 Final Cultural Resources Inventory Report For The Williams Communications, Inc., Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project, Riverside To San Diego, California Vol I-IV.
2000
Barker, Leo R. and Ann
E. Huston
RI-04762 Death Valley to Deadwood; Kennecott to Cripple Creek. Proceedings Of The Historic Mining Conference, January 23-27, 1989, Death Valley National Monument
1990
Wlodarski, Robert J. RI-04799 A Phase I Archaeological Study For Telacu Housing-Riverside, Inc., 1807 11th Street, City Of Riverside, County Of Riverside, California 2004
Mckenna et al. RI-04997 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation Of The Proposed Chiller Plant, Tank, And Pipeline System On The University Of California, Riverside Campus, Riverside, Riverside County, California. 2001
Mckenna et al. RI-05056 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation For The Proposed Corona Feeder Master Plan Project Area, Riverside County, California 2003
Doan, Uyen K., Michael
Hogan, And Bai Tang
RI-05748 Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment: Hunter Park Redevelopment Plan Amendment, City Of Riverside, Riverside County, California 2003
Love, Bruce, Bai Tang,
Michael Hogan, And
Mariam Dahdul
RI-05873 Cultural Resources Technical Report, UCR Long Range Development Plan
2002
Tang, Bai, Michael
Hogan, And Josh
Smallwood
RI-05996 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report, APNs 221-161-002, -003, -005, -024, -025, -026, 1744-1794 12th Street, City Of Riverside, Riverside County, Ca
2003
Bricker, David RI-06088 First Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report For The Improvement Of Interstate Route 215/State Route 91/ State Route 60, Riverside County, Ca
1998
Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 26 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
Author EIC# Title Year
Carla Allred RI-06284 Letter Report: Proposed Cellular Tower Project(S) In Riverside County, California, Site Number(S) And Name(S): La-0779b/Freeway Storage TCNs #17312
2006
McKenna, Jeanette A.,
Kristina Lindgren, and
Darlene Harr
RI-06838 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation And Historic Building Survey For The Proposed New Eastside Elementary School Site In Riverside, Riverside County, California
2006
Carolyn E. Kyle RI-07058 Cultural Resource Assessment For Cingular Wireless Facility Sb145-01 City Of Riverside, Riverside County, California
2002
Rod McLean RI-07169 Cultural Resource Assessment: Cingular Wireless Facility No. Sb-304- 02, City Of Riverside, Riverside County, California
2004
Jeanette A. McKenna RI-08598 A Summary Report On The Proposed Improvements At The John W.

North High School Campus In The City Of Riverside County, California 2010
Roger D. Mason and
Wayne H. Bonner
RI-09990 Cultural Resources Record Search And Literature Review For A Pacific Bell Mobile Services Telecommunications Facility: Cm 043-18 City Of Riverside, California
1998
Fred E. Budinger, Jr. RI-10354 With Antenna Licensing from The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Verizon Wireless, Inc.
2001

Source: EIC, 2022

Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
The records search results indicate that no archaeological resources have been previously recorded within the Project Site or 0.50-mile radius.

Sacred Lands File Search
The NAHC maintains a confidential Sacred Lands File (SLF) which contains sites of traditional, cultural, or religious value to the Native American community. The NAHC was contacted on June 27, 2022, to request a search of the SLF. The NAHC responded to the request in a letter dated August 4, 2022, indicating that the SLF search was negative (Appendix B).

Historic Maps and Aerial Photographs
Historic maps and aerial photographs were examined to provide historical information about land uses of the Project Site and to contribute to an assessment of the Project Site’s archaeological sensitivity. Available topographic maps include the 1901 and 1947 Riverside 15-minute quadrangles, the 1942, 1953, 1967, and 1980 Riverside East 7.5-minute quadrangles (Citadel EHS 2022). Historic aerial photographs were available for the years 1931, 1938 (Citadel EHS 2022a), 1948, 1959 (historicaerials.com 2022), 1966, 1968, 1978, 1985, 1989, 1994, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2016 (Citadel EHS 2022a), and 2022 (Bing Maps 2022).

Topographic Maps
Review of the 1901 historic topographic map indicates that the Project Site is undeveloped; however, adjacent unnamed roads are depicted immediately north and south of the Project Site.

Two tributaries likely associated with the Santa Ana River are depicted in the surrounding vicinity; the closest tributary is located approximately 0.25-miles north, while the second closest Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 27 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
tributary is shown as located approximately 0.90-miles south of the Project Site. Additionally, the Gage Canal is depicted as located approximately 0.57-miles east of the Project Site. The 1942 historic topographic map continues showing the Project Site as undeveloped; although, by this time the current University Avenue is depicted as Eighth Street. The 1947 historic topographic map shows that the Project Site is utilized as an orchard. The 1953 historic topographic map no longer depicts the orchard, but rather one large structure in the southern portion of the Project Site and a smaller structure in the northwest portion of the Project Site. The 1967 and 1980 historic topographic maps show no changes from the previous 1953 topographic map, with the exception of one small additional structure located northeast of the large structure in the southern portion of the Project Site.

Aerial Photographs
Review of the 1931 and 1938 aerial photographs show the Project Site as developed with orchards, while a paved road is depicted immediately south. The 1948 and 1959 aerial photographs no longer depict the orchards within the Project Site, but rather the Project Site appears as developed with at least two buildings. For instance, the current building in the southern portion of the Project Site is present on the site by 1948. A few small structures are also depicted immediately north of the current building and a rectangular building is depicted in the northwest portion (Figures 3 and 4). A driveway leading to the rectangular building in the northwest is also shown along the western portion of the Project Site. The 1966 and 1968 aerial photographs do not show major changes in the Project Site with the exception that the southwest portion appears to be used as a parking lot. The 1978 does not show changes to the Project Site.

The 1985 and 1989 aerial photographs show the Project Site as it was shown in previous aerials, but by this time, it appears that only one small structure is located in the central portion of the Project Site. The 1994, 2002, 2006, 2009, and 2012 aerial photographs show no changes in the Project Site. The 2016 aerial photograph shows the large structure in the southern portion of the Project Site as surrounded by an asphalt- parking lot.

A concrete pad appears to be located immediately north and adjacent to the asphalt parking lot.

The structure in the northwest corner appears to have been removed and only a concrete pad appears to remain. The 2022 aerial photograph shows no changes to the 2016 aerial photograph.

Review of Phase I ESA
Review of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report (Phase I ESA report) prepared for the Project indicates that a total of two underground storage tanks (USTs), one 300-gallon and one 450-gallon once existed in the Project Site, but were removed in 1984. One of the USTs stored diesel, while the other one stored gasoline (Citadel EHS 2022a). The locations of the USTs are unknown, but these are assumed to have been located in a maintenance area north of the current existing building. An abandoned clarifier is also known to have been located in the concrete pad of the maintenance area and backfilled with concrete (Citadel EHS 2022b).

Path: \\azr-file01\GIS_SHARE\GIS\GIS\Projects\2022xxx\D202200383_1575_University_Riverside\03_MXDs_Projects\Cultural\Fig3_1948_HistoricAerial.mxd, janderson 7/27/2022 SOURCE: HistoricAerials.com
N
0 80
Feet
Project Site
1575 University Avenue
Figure 3
1948 Historic Aerial
Path: \\azr-file01\GIS_SHARE\GIS\GIS\Projects\2022xxx\D202200383_1575_University_Riverside\03_MXDs_Projects\Cultural\Fig4_1959_HistoricAerial.mxd, janderson 7/27/2022 SOURCE: HistoricAerials.com
N
0 80
Feet
Project Site
1575 University Avenue
Figure 4
1959 Historic Aerial
Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 30 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
Attached to the Phase I ESA report by Citadel EHS (2022a) is an earlier Phase I ESA prepared by HEI Corporation (2012), which indicates that in the northwest portion of the Project Site was a large “Quonset hut, a bowed metal building”, and in the area immediately north of the large existing building was “a smaller Quonset hut as well as a metal shed” (HEI Corporation 2012: 4).

These structures are known to have been removed by 2014 (HEI Corporation 2012).

The Phase I ESA report also indicates that early occupants of the Project Site include:
“McCormick Deering Farm Equipment in 1951; Braman Dickerson Co. between 1951 and 1955; Contractors Equipment CV in 1955; Brown Bevis Industrial Equipment Co. of Riverside in 1960; International Harvester Company between 1966 and 1977; Citrus International Trucks Inc. and Citrus Orchard Service Inc. in 1977; Jones and Sons Coach Builders in 1981; antique shops between 1986 and 1994; Kawasaki of Riverside, a motorcycle dealer, between 1995 to 2011; Riverside Seafood Restaurant in 2014; Riverside Restaurant between 2015 and 2017; and International Meiberlee in 2017” (Citadel EHS 2022a:12).

Geologic Map Review
Geologic mapping of the Riverside East/South half of San Bernardino South quadrangles by Dibblee and Minch (2003) indicate that the Project Site is located within Pleistocene aged Quaternary old alluvium (Qoa) deposits described as alluvial fan deposits consisting of sand and minor gravel. Areas north and northeast of the Project Site are depicted as located within Holocene aged Quaternary alluvial (Qg) gravel and sand of stream channels (Figure 5).

Geotechnical Report Review
ESA reviewed the Geotechnical Engineering Exploration report (Geotechnical report) prepared for the Project by Byer Geotechnical, Inc. (2022). The geotechnical report indicates that nine borings were drilled at the Project Site to approximate depths of 11 to 51.5-feet below existing grade. The exact locations of the borings are not known, as the geotechnical report does not contain figures showing boring locations. Nevertheless, the geotechnical report mentions that fill associated with previous site grading was found in borings B1 through B5, underlying the southern portion of the Project Site to a maximum depth of 2.5 feet. Additionally, natural alluvium (Qg) of stream channels, in the order of 10 feet thick was also encountered at the Project Site in borings B1 through B4 and B7. Lastly, older alluvium deposits (Qoa) were found beneath the alluvium (Qg) layer (Byer Geotechnical, Inc. 2022).

Path: \\azr-file01\GIS_SHARE\GIS\GIS\Projects\2022xxx\D202200383_1575_University_Riverside\03_MXDs_Projects\Cultural\Fig5_Geology.mxd, janderson 7/27/2022 SOURCE: Dibblee, T. W. and Minch, J. A. 2003
N
0 2,000
Feet
Project Site
Geology
Qg: Alluvial gravel and sand of stream channels
Qoa: Alluvial fan deposits of sand, minor gravel
1575 University Avenue
Figure 5
Geologic Map
Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 32 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
Cultural Resources Survey
Methods
On July 20, 2022, ESA archaeologist, Fatima Clark conducted a cultural resources pedestrian survey to identify surface evidence of cultural resources within the Project Site. As the southern portion of the Project Site is fully developed with an existing large building and paved parking lot, the survey was focused on the undeveloped northern portion. Approximately 98 percent of the northern Project Site was subject to a systematic pedestrian survey using transect intervals spaced at no more than 5-meters (approximately 16 feet) apart. The remaining two percent was not surveyed, since an active homeless encampment was present in the northwest portion of the Project Site. Previously unrecorded cultural resources older than 45-years were recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Site forms.

Results
The northern portion is separated from the southern portion of the Project Site by a metal fence with barbed wire. Ground surface visibility in the surveyed portion was approximately 0 to 5- percent since the majority of the Project Site is covered with grasses. Modern trash and rodent burrows were observed throughout the northern portion of the Project Site. ESA identified two built environment resources within the Project Site. These resources were documented on DPR Site forms since they appear to be older than 45 years. They will be temporarily designated as FC-Site-1 and FC-Site-2. The DPR Site Forms for these newly identified resources are provided in Appendix C of this report and are described in more detail below. Photographs of the Project Site and detailed notes were taken.

Significance/Eligibility Evaluation
Approach
Evaluation of cultural resources is determined by conducting an “evaluation” of a potential resource’s eligibility for listing in the National Register or California Register and/or determining whether it qualifies as a “unique archaeological resource” (i.e., Phase II assessment). This is achieved by applying the National and California Register criteria (including criteria for a “unique archaeological resource”) to the resources. A potentially eligible resource must also have integrity in order to be considered culturally significant. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association. If a potential resource is recommended eligible for listing in the California Register or qualifies as a “unique archaeological resource,” then the resource is considered a historical resource pursuant to CEQA §15064.5 and any substantial adverse change to the resource is considered a significant impact on the environment.

Evaluation of Resources Identified Within the Project Site As discussed earlier, ESA identified two built environment resources within the Project Site (FC- Site-1 and FC-Site-2) during the pedestrian survey. These resources were evaluated for significance. Since no definitive association to a significant event or person has been found based Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 33 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
on ESA’s research, the surveyed resources do not appear to be eligible under Criteria A or 1 or B or 2. Furthermore, the resources are made from standard construction materials and they are only partially intact, therefore, they do not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. As such, the resources do not appear to be eligible under Criterion C or 3. Finally, research and documentation of the resources and analysis of this data has documented and exhausted their information potential, and they have been recorded on standard DPR Site Forms. Therefore, the resources do not appear eligible under Criterion D or 4.

Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment
Prehistoric Archaeological Analysis
The geologic map and geotechnical report reviews indicate that the Project Site contains Holocene-age Quaternary alluvium soils of stream channels. The Holocene-age of this alluvium encompasses the entirety of human occupation in North America, and is, therefore, conducive to the preservation of subsurface prehistoric archaeological deposits. Moreover, several water sources located in the general vicinity of the Project Site would indicate a degree of sensitivity for the presence of prehistoric subsurface archaeological deposits. Nevertheless, the Project Site has been subject to a number of previous disturbances, as indicated by the historic topographic map aerial photograph and Phase I ESA review. For instance, prior to 1948, the entire Project Site was used as an orchard, which would have required a high degree of ground disturbance associated with leveling the landform, as well as the planting of trees. By and after 1948, grading likely occurred for the existing building in the southern portion and associated asphalt parking lot, and the two buildings in the northern portion (for which only concrete pads remain) of the Project Site. A total of two USTs and a clarifier are also known to have existed within the Project Site.

Lastly, the cultural resources records search and pedestrian survey yielded negative results for prehistoric archaeological resources. Based on these results, the potential to encounter prehistoric archaeological resources within the Project Site is considered low to moderate.

Historical Archaeological Analysis
As mentioned above, the Project Site was subject to historic-period land uses dating back to at least 1948, including buildings in the northern portion of the Project Site. This suggests that the Project Site could also have a low to moderate potential to contain historic-period archaeological resources. However, based on historical research that failed to identify a significant association with important events or individuals, it is unlikely that remnants of these previous uses would be eligible as historical or unique archaeological resources since they are unlikely to yield information important in history.

Conclusions and Recommendations
Since the built environment resources (FC-Site-1 and FC-Site-2) identified within the Project Site are recommended as not eligible for listing in the California Register, Project impacts to these resources are not considered a significant impact to the environment under CEQA and no further analysis is necessary.

Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 34 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
No archaeological resources were identified within or immediately adjacent to the Project Site, and the archaeological sensitivity assessment concluded that there is a low to moderate potential for encountering subsurface archaeological resources. Nevertheless, since the Project includes ground disturbance, mitigation measures are recommended in order to reduce potential impacts to previously unknown archaeological resources and human remains to less than significant levels under CEQA. This study shows successful compliance with mitigation measure CUL-2 of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which included the preparation of a cultural resources report. CUL-3 of the MMRP would not apply. The following mitigation measures are consistent with the MMRP, and the project does not require full time monitoring. A qualified archaeologist shall be retained if unanticipated resources are encountered. If unanticipated resources are found to be significant under CEQA than CUL- 4, CUL-5, and CUL-8 of the MMRP would apply.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (MMRP CUL-4): Develop and implement an Archaeological Treatment Plan (ATP) for evaluation of newly discovered and/or unevaluated archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-4 shall apply as follows:
• The results of an archaeological study conducted under Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-2 are unable to determine the eligibility of newly identified archaeological sites for inclusion to the CRHR and it is determined by the consulting archaeologist that additional study through Phase II testing is required;
• It is not possible to avoid impacts through the establishment of ESAs; or • Unanticipated archaeological resources are discovered during construction on Opportunity Sites.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2 (MMRP CUL-5): Implement data recovery for CRHR-eligible sites that cannot be avoided. If archaeological studies identify a cultural resource as being potentially eligible for listing in the CRHR and ESAs cannot be established or project design cannot be altered, resulting in impacts on the site, then a Phase III data recovery program shall be developed, when mutually agreed upon by Native American representatives (for prehistoric or historic-period Native American sites) and the City. The data recovery program shall be outlined Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 35 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
in a Data Recovery Treatment Plan that details the procedures and objectives for mitigation of impacts on the archaeological site. The Data Recovery Treatment Plan shall include a research design with testable hypotheses and data requirements necessary to address these hypotheses.

Additionally, the Data Recovery Treatment Plan shall identify methods of excavation, analysis, and curation of any archaeological materials recovered. The Data Recovery Treatment Plan shall also identify the treatment of any human remains discovered during data recovery procedures. If the archaeological resource is Native American (prehistoric or historic-period in age), then the City, the applicant, and the archaeologist shall engage in consultation so that Native American representatives can be involved in the development of the data recovery plan. Data recovery shall involve analysis of a representative sample of the materials recovered during excavation. For prehistoric archaeological sites, all excavations should be monitored by a representative from a geographically appropriate Native American group. At the conclusion of the data recovery program, a data recovery technical report shall be completed detailing the results of the excavations and analysis. Curation of recovered archaeological materials shall be conducted per the guidance in the Data Recovery Treatment Plan and with consultation between the City and appropriate Native American tribes. Other forms of mitigation could include additional research with archival sources, landscape studies, designation of open space, public outreach programs, and public education/public displays.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3 (MMRP CUL-8): Employ procedures for treatment and disposition of cultural resources. If cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of grading for individual Opportunity Sites, the following procedures shall be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:

Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 36 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
b. Execute a curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository within Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore will ensure professional curation and availability to other archaeologists/researchers for further study.

The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility within Riverside County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.
c. If more than one Native American tribe or band is involved with the subsequent development project and cannot come to a consensus as to the disposition of cultural materials, curate the discovered items at the Western Science Center or Museum of Riverside by default.
d. At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities on the site, provide to the City a Phase IV Monitoring Report documenting monitoring activities conducted by the project archaeologist and Native American tribal monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts on the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required Cultural Sensitivity Training for the construction staff held during the required pre-grade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced shall be submitted to the City, the Eastern Information Center, and consulting tribes.

Mitigation Measure CUL-4 (MMRP CUL-9): Conduct cultural sensitivity training. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the SOI Standards– certified archaeologist and Native American monitors shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the applicant/permit holder’s contractors to provide Cultural Sensitivity Training for all construction personnel. This shall include the procedures to be followed during ground disturbance in sensitive areas and protocols that apply in the event unanticipated resources are discovered. Only construction personnel who have received this training can conduct construction and disturbance activities in sensitive areas.

A sign-in sheet for attendees of this training shall be provided to the City.

References
Bean, L. J. 1978. Cahuilla. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 575-587, Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, L.J., and F.C. Shipek. 1978. Luiseño. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 550- 563. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, L. J., and C. R. Smith. 1978. Gabrielino. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, 538-549, Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.
_____1978. Serrano, In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 570-574, Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 37 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Bing Maps. 2022. Aerial View of the Project Site. https://www.bing.com/maps/, accessed July 6, 2022.

Byer Geotechnical, Inc. 2022. Geotechnical Engineering Exploration, Proposed Five-Story At- Grade Mixed-Use/Residential Development, Five-Story At-Grade Parking Structure, And Swimming Pool and Spa, Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 250-170-036, 1575 University Avenue, Riverside, Riverside County, California, For CGI+, Project Number BG 23509, February 21, 2022.

Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab. 2007. “Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium”, in California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp 215-227.

Campbell, Lyle. 1997. American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native American. Oxford University Press, New York.

Chartkoff, J. L. and K. K. Chartkoff. 1984. The Archaeology of California. Menlo Park: Stanford University Press.

Citadel EHS. 2022a. Citadel Project No. 1809.1006.0, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 1575 University Avenue, Riverside, California 92507. _____2022b. Citadel Project No. 1809.1008.0, Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report Commercial Property, 1575 University Avenue, Riverside, California 92507.

City of Riverside General Plan. 2025. Historic Preservation Element. https://riversideca.gov/cedd/sites/riversideca.gov.cedd/files/pdf/planning/general- plan/16_Historic_Preservation_Element.pdf, accessed July 6, 2022.

City of Riverside. 2009. Eastside Neighborhood Plan. Appendix D of the General Plan. https://www.riversideca.gov/cedd/sites/riversideca.gov.cedd/files/pdf/planning/general- plan/Eastside-Neighborhood-Plan-Final.pdf, accessed November 2, 2022.

Dibblee, T. W. and Minch, J. A. 2003. Geologic map of the Riverside East/south ½ of San Bernardino South quadrangles, San Bernardino and Riverside County, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-109, 1: 24,000.

Erlandson, Jon M., Torben C. Rick, Terry L. Jones, and Judith F. Porcasi. 2007. One If By Land, Two If By Sea: Who Were the First Californians? In T. Jones & K. Klar (eds.). California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Pages 53-62. Alta Mira Press.

Goldberg, Susan K. 2001. Land Use, Mobility, and Intensification Evaluation and Refinement of the Model. In Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project Archaeological Investigations, Vol. IV: Chapter 14. Susan K. Goldberg, general editor. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Submitted to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

Goldberg, Susan K., Jill A. Onken, W. Geoff Spaulding, Mark C. Robinson, Melinda C. Horne, and Rebecca L. McKim. 2001. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project Final Report of Archaeological Investigations, Vol. IV: Synthesis of Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 38 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
Findings. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Hemet, California. Submitted to Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

Grenda, Donn. 1997. Continuity and Change: 8,500 Years of Lacustrine Adaptation on the Shores of Lake Elsinore. Statistical Research Inc. (SRI) Technical Series 59, SRI, Tucson, Arizona.

HEI Corporation. 2012. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Commercial Property with Excess Land, 1575 University Avenue, Riverside, California.

Heizer, Robert F. (editor). 1978. California. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Hill, Jane. 2001. Proto-Uto-Aztecan: A Community of Cultivators in Central Mexico? American Anthropologist, 103(4):913-934.

Horne, Melinda. 1998. Notification of Archaeological Discovery, Evaluation, and Management Recommendations for Prehistoric Site CA-RIV-6069. Prepared for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Inland Feeder Project. Applied Earthworks, Inc., Hemet.

Johnson, John R., Thomas W. Stafford, Jr., Henry O. Ajie, and Don P. Morris. 2002. Arlington Springs Revisited. Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, edited by David R. Brown, Kathryn C. Mitchell and Henry W. Chaney, pp. 541–545. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara.

Keller, Jean K. and Daniel F. McCarthy. 1989. Data Recovery at the Cole Canyon Site (CA-RIV- 139), Riverside, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly. 25(1).

Meltzer, David J., Donald K. Grayson, Gerardo Ardila, Alex W. Barker, Dena F. Dincauze, C.

Vance Haynes, Francisco Mena, Lautaro Nuñez, and Dennis J. Stanford. 1997. On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 62(4):659-663.

Meighan, Clement W. 1954. A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 10(2): 215-227.

Moratto, M. J. 1984. California Archaeology. Smithsonian Press: San Diego, CA.

National Register Bulletin. 2002. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Price, Barry, Alan G. Gold, Barbara S. Tejada, David D. Earle, Suzanne Griset, Jay B. Lloyd, Mary Baloian, Nancy Valente, Virginia S. Popper, and Liza Anderson. 2008. The Archaeology of CA-LAN-192: Lovejoy Springs and Western Mojave Desert Prehistory.

Prepared by Applied Earthworks for the County of Los Angeles, September.

Rolle, A. 2003. California: A History. Sixth Edition. Harlan Davidson, Inc.: Illinois.

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 2008. (As Amended and Annotated), National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Starr, K. 2007. California: A History. Modern Library, Random House, Inc. New York.

Cultural Resources Assessment
1575 University Avenue Project 39 ESA / D202200383.00
Cultural Resources Assessment November 2022
CONFIDENTIAL – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Sutton, Mark. 2009. People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion into Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2/3):32-92.

Wallace, William J. 1955. A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230.

Warren, C. N. 1968. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, C. Irwin-Williams, ed, pp. 1-4.

Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology. Portales. _____1984. “The Desert Region,” In California Archaeology, Coyote Press, Salinas, California.

Appendix A
Personnel

Sara Dietler
Senior Archaeologist

Sara is a senior archaeology and paleontology lead with 20 years of experience in cultural resources management in Southern California. As a senior project manager, she manages technical studies including archaeological and paleontological assessments and surveys, as well as monitoring and fossil salvage for many clients, including public agencies and private developers. She is a cross- trained paleontological monitor and supervisor, familiar with regulations and guidelines implementing the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines. She has extensive experience providing oversight for long-term monitoring projects throughout the Los Angeles Basin for archaeological, Native American, and paleontological monitoring compliance projects and provides streamlined management for these disciplines.

Relevant Experience
San Pedro Plaza Park, San Pedro, Los Angeles, CA. Senior Cultural Resources Project Manager. Provided archaeological and paleontological monitoring support for the San Pedro Plaza Park Project. The project area is located in the City of Los Angeles port district of San Pedro, approximately 26 miles south of downtown Los Angeles for the City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, Environmental Management Group, Sara provided quality control oversight for the archaeological and paleontological mitigation. During monitoring on the project, archaeological materials were recovered include refuse associated with park use since it opened in 1889, and historic building debris likely associated with the Carnegie Library which formerly stood on site. Provided recommendations for commemoration and protection of the find.

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works BOE, Gaffey Street Pool Construction Monitoring, San Pedro, Los Angeles, CA. Project Manager. Sara oversaw the data recovery of a World War I slit trench discovered during project excavation for an ADA compliant sidewalk. Provided mitigation recommendations and immediate response to the find. Served as project manager and senior archaeologist on the project.

Warner Grand Theatre, Historic Resources Technical Report and Conditions Assessment, San Pedro, Los Angeles, CA. Project Manager, Report Co-Author.

The City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, Environmental Management Group requested a Cultural Resources Surveys to inform and guide future rehabilitation or redevelopment efforts of the Warner Grand Theatre. The Warner Grand Theatre designed in the Art Deco-Modern style by master architect B. Marcus Priteca in 1931, and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and is designated a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument. ESA prepared a historical resources technical report and conditions assessment report, which provided a comprehensive table of character-defining features along with a conditions

EDUCATION
BA. Anthropology,
San Diego State
University
20 YEARS OF

EXPERIENCE

CERTIFICATIONS/

REGISTRATION
California BLM Permit,
Principal Investigator,
Statewide
Nevada BLM Permit,
Paleontology, Field
Agent, Statewide

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Society for American
Archaeology (SAA)
Society for California
Archaeology (SCA)

Sara Dietler

Page 2 ends

Riverside City CouncilSeptember 19, 2023

Riverside City Council
September 19, 2023