Attachment 3m - Draft EIR — Riverside City Council, August 20, 2024 (part 1 of 3)

Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH#2022100610
p
repared for
City of Riverside
Community & Economic Development Department, Planning Division 3900 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, California 92522
Contact: Veronica Hernandez, Senior Planner
p
repared by
Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C310
Ontario, CA 91764
M
ay 2024
Mission Grove Apartments Project
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR

Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH#2022100610

prepared for
City of Riverside
Community & Economic Development Department, Planning Division 3900 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, California 92522
Contact: Veronica Hernandez, Senior Planner

prepared by
Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C310
Ontario, CA 91764

May 2024

Mission Grove Apartments Project
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Table of Contents
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS AND ACRONYMS
The Table of Contents for the Draft EIR including the list of tables, figures, and appendices is presented below. The acronyms, units of measurement, and chemical symbols used throughout the Draft EIR are identified immediately following the Table of Contents.

Table of Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 1 .0-1

1.1. Project Applicant ........................................................................................... 1.0-1

1.2. Lead Agency ................................................................................................. 1.0-1

1.3. Project Description ........................................................................................ 1.0-1

1.4. Alternatives ................................................................................................... 1.0-3

1.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Project/ No Redevelopment….. ……………...……. 1.0-4

1.4.2 Alternative 2 – Lower Density ALUC Consistent Multi-Family Residential Project .............................................................................................. 1.0-4

1.4.3 Alternative 3 – Retail Project Alternative…….…………………………. 1.0-5

1.4.4 Alternative 4 – Off-Site Multi-Family Residential Project……….. ……. 1.0-5

1.5 A reas of Known Controversy……………………………………………………. 1.0-6

1.6 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures…………………………… ...…1.0-6 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2 .0-1

2.1. Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................... 2.0-1

2.2. Legal Authority .............................................................................................. 2.0-3

2.3. Environmental Procedure ............................................................................. 2.0-3

2.4. Scope and Content ....................................................................................... 2.0-5

2.5. Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies ................................................. 2.0-6

2.6. E
IR Format .................................................................................................. 2.0-6

2.7. Environmental Review Process .................................................................... 2.0-8

3.0 Project Description ............................................................................................ 3.0-1

3.1. Project Location ............................................................................................ 3.0-1

3.2. Existing Site Characteristics…………………………………………………… …3.0-5

3.2.1 Project Site Background………… ……… …… ……………………………..3 .0-5

3.2.2 Current and Proposed Land Use, Zoning & Specific Plan .……………..3. 0 -6

3.2.3 Sur
rounding Land Use and Zoning ........................................................ 3.0-6

3.3 Project Entitlements ............................................................................... …3 .0-14

3.3.1 General Plan Amendment.……………………………………………… ...3.0-14

3.3.2 Change of Zoning……... ……………………………………………………3.0- 14

3.3.3 Specific Plan Amendment.….…… ..………………………………………. 3.0-14

3.3.4 Tentative Parcel Map… ……………………………………………………..3.0- 14

3.3.5 Design Review………………………………………………………………. 3.0-15

3.4 Project Objectives……………………………………………………… ...………..3 .0-23 PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Table of Contents City of Riverside
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

3.5 Discretionary Actions and Approvals ……………. ……………………………. 3.0-24

4.0 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................... 4 .0-1

4.1 Regional Setting .......................................................................................... 4.0-1

4.2 Project Site Setting ...................................................................................... 4.0-1

4.3 Developments Considered in Cumulative Impact Analysis .......................... 4.0-1

5.0 Potentially Significant Environmental Effects ............................................ 5.0-1

5.0.1 Appendices/Technical Studies .................................................................... 5.0-1

5.0.2 Analysis Format .................................................................................................. 5.0-2

5.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................... 5.1-1

5.1.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 5.1-1

5.1.2 Related Regulations .................................................................................. 5.1-3

5.1.2.1 Federal Regulations…………………………………………………..5.1 -3

5.1.2.2 State Regulations ……………………………………………………5.1 -3

5.1.2.3 Regional Regulations ……………………………………………….. 5.1-4

5.1.2.4 Local Regulations ……………………………………………………5.1 -4

5.1.3 Project Design Considerations……………………………………………………………….5.1-5

5.1.4 Thresholds of Significance… .................................................................. 5.1-20

5.1.5 Environmental Impacts ............................................................................ 5.1-20

5.1.6 Proposed Mitigation Measures ............................................................... 5.1-23

5.1.7 Cumulative Environmental Effects ......................................................... 5.1-23

5.1.8 References ………………………………………………………………. 5.1-24

5.2 A griculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................ 5.2-1

5.2.1 Setting ............................................................................................... 5.2-1

5.2.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................ 5.2-1

5.2.3 Comments Received in Response to NOP ........................................ 5.2-2

5.2.4 Project Design Considerations .......................................................... 5.2-2

5.2.5 Threshold of Significance .................................................................. 5.2-2

5.2.6 Env ironmental Impacts ...................................................................... 5.2-2

5.2.7 Proposed Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 5.2-4

5.2.8 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects .......................... 5.2-4

5.2.9 Cumulative Environmental Effects ..................................................... 5.2-4

5.2.10 References ....................................................................................... 5.2.-4

5.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................... 5.3-1

5.3.1 Setting .............................................................................................. 5.3-1

5.3.2 Related Regulations ................................................................................ 5.3-12

5.3.2.1 Federal Regulation…………………………………………………5.3 -12

5.3.2.2 State Regulations………………………………………………….. 5.3-14

5.3.2.3 Regional Regulations………………………………………………5.3 -16
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Table of Contents
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

iii

5.3.2.4 Local Regulations………………………………………………….. 5.3-17

5.3.3 Project Design Considerations ........................................................ 5.3-19

5.3.4 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................. 5.3-19

5.3.5 Environmental Impacts ................................................................... 5.3-20

5.3.6 Cumulative Environmental Effects .................................................. 5.3-29

5.3.7 References ..................................................................................... 5.3-29

5.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................. 5.4-1

5.4.1 Setting ............................................................................................... 5.4-1

5.4.2 Related Regulations .......................................................................... 5.4-4

5.4.2.1 Federal Regulations………………………………………………….5.4 -4

5.4.2.2 State Regulations…………………………………………………….5.4 -5

5.4.2.3 Regional Regulations……………………………………………….. .5.4-6

5.4.2.4 Local Regulations ...................................................................... 5.4-7

5.4.3 Comments Received in Response to NOP ....................................... 5.4-8

5.4.4 Project Design Considerations .......................................................... 5.4-8

5.4.5 Threshold of Significance .................................................................. 5.4-8

5.4.6 Environmental Impacts ..................................................................... 5.4-9

5.4.7 Proposed Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 5.4-13

5.4.8 C umulative Environmental Effects .................................................. 5.4-13

5.4.9 References ..................................................................................... 5.4-13

5.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................. 5.5-1

5.5.1 Setting .............................................................................................. 5.5-1

5.5.2 Related Regulations .......................................................................... 5.5-5

5.5.2.1 Federal Regulations………………………………………………….5.5 -5

5.5.2.2 State Regulations…………………………………………………….5.5-5

5.5.2.3 Local Regulations………………………… ...………………………. 5.5-7

5.5.3 Project Design Considerations ................................................. ……5.5 -10

5.5.4 Methodology ................................................................................... 5.5-11

5.5.5 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................. 5.5-12

5.5.6 Environmental Impacts ................................................................... 5.5-13

5.5.7 P roposed Mitigation Measures ........................................................ 5.5-14

5.5.8 Cumulative Environmental Effects .................................................. 5.5-17

5.5.9 References ..................................................................................... 5.5-18

5.6 E nergy ..................................................................................................... 5.6-1

5.6.1 Setting ............................................................................................... 5.6-1

5.6.2 Related Regulations .......................................................................... 5.6-6

5.6.2.1 Federal Regulations .................................................................... 5.6-6

5.6.2.2 State Regulations ....................................................................... 5.6-6

5.6.2.3 Regional Regulations ............................................................... 5.6-10

5.6.2.4 Local Regulations ..................................................................... 5.6-10

5.6.3 Project Design Considerations ........................................................ 5.6-12

5.6.4 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................. 5.6-12 PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Table of Contents City of Riverside
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.6.5 Environmental Impacts .................................................................... 5.6-12

5.6.6 Proposed Mitigation Measures ........................................................ 5.6-17

5.6.7 Cumulative Environmental Effects ................................................... 5.6-17

5.6.8 References ...................................................................................... 5.6-18

5.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................. 5.7-1

5.7.1 Setting .............................................................................................. 5.7-1

5.7.2 Related Regulations .......................................................................... 5.7-4

5.7.2.1 Federal Regulations .................................................................... 5.7-4

5.7.2.2 State Regulations ....................................................................... 5.7-5

5.7.2.3 Regional Regulations .................................................................. 5.7-7

5.7.2.4 Local Regulations ....................................................................... 5.7-7

5.7.3 Project Design Considerations .......................................................... 5.7-9

5.7.4 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................ 5.7-9

5.7.5 Environmental Impacts ................................................................... 5.7-10

5.7.6 Proposed Mitigation Measures ........................................................ 5.7-13

5.7.7 Cumulative Environmental Effects .................................................. 5.7-13

5.7.8 References ..................................................................................... 5.7-14

5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................. 5.8-1

5.8.1 Setting ............................................................................................... 5.8-1

5.8.1.1 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases ................................... 5.8-1

5.8.2 Related Regulations .......................................................................... 5.8-9

5.8.2.1 International Regulations ............................................................ 5.8-9

5.8.2.2 Federal Regulations .................................................................. 5.8-11

5.8.2.3 State Regulations .................................................................... 5.8-15

5.8.2.4 Regional Regulations ............................................................... 5.8-26

5.8.2.5 Local Regulations .................................................................... 5.8-28

5.8.3 Project Design Considerations ........................................................ 5.8-29

5.8.4 Thr esholds of Significance .............................................................. 5.8-29

5.8.5 Environmental Impacts .................................................................... 5.8-29

5.8.6 Proposed Mitigation Measures ........................................................ 5.8-41

5.8.7 Cumulative Environmental Effects ................................................... 5.8-41

5.8.8 References ...................................................................................... 5.8-42

5.9 Hazard and Hazardous Materials .................................................... 5.9-1

5.9.1 Setting ................................................................................................ 5.9-1

5.9.2 Regulatory Setting .............................................................................. 5.9-1

5.9.2.1 Federal Regulations ..................................................................... 5.9-1

5.9.2.2 State Regulations ......................................................................... 5.9-3

5.9.2.3 Regional Regulations.................................................................... 5.9-5

5.9.2.4 Local Regulations ......................................................................... 5.9-7

5.9.3 Comments Received in Response to NOP ......................................... 5.9-9 PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Table of Contents
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.9.4 Project Design Consideration ............................................................. 5.9-9

5.9.5 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................. 5.9-9

5.9.6 Environmental Impacts ..................................................................... 5.9-10

5.9.7 Proposed Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 5.9-25

5.9.8 Cumulative Environmental Effects .................................................... 5.9-25

5.9.9 References ....................................................................................... 5.9-27

5.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................... 5.10-1

5.10.1 Setting ............................................................................................ 5.10-1

5.10.2 Regulatory Setting .......................................................................... 5.10-2

5.10.2.1 Federal Regulations……………………………………………….. 5.10-2

5.10.2.2 State Regulations…………………………………………………..5.10 -3

5.10.2.3 Regional Regulations……………………………………...……….5.10 -4

5.10.2.4 Local Regulations…………………………………………………..5.10 -5

5.10.3 Comments Received in Response to NOP ..................................... 5.10-7

5.10.4 P roject Design Considerations ........................................................ 5.10-7

5.10.5 Thresholds Measures of Significance.............................................. 5.10-8

5.10.6 Environmental Impacts ................................................................... 5.10-9

5.10.7 Proposed Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 5.10-12

5.10.8 Cumulative Environmental Effects ................................................ 5.10-12

5.10.9 References……………………………………………………………...5.10 -13

5.11 Land Use and Planning .................................................................. 5.11-1

5.11.1 Setting ............................................................................................ 5.11-1

5.11.2 Related Regulations ........................................................................ 5.11-4

5.11.2.1 Federal Regulations………………………………………………. 5.11-4

5.11.2.2 State Regulations……………………………………………… ...5.11-4

5.11.2.3 Regional Regulations………………………………… ………….5.11 -4

5.11.2.4 Local Regulations………………………………………………….5.11-5

5.11.3 Comments Received in Response to NOP ..................................... 5.11-9

5.11.4 Project Design Considerations ........................................................ 5.11-9

5.11.5 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................. 5.11-9

5.11.6 E nvironmental Im pacts ................................................................. 5.11-10

5.11.7 Proposed Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 5.11-64

5.11.8 Cumulative Environmental Effects ............................................... 5.11-64

5.11.9 References ……………………………………………………………5 .11-65

5.12 Mineral Resources ......................................................................... 5.12-1

5.12.1 Setting ............................................................................................ 5.12-1

5.12.2 Regulatory Setting…………….…………………………………………5.12-1

5.12.2.1 Federal Regulations………………………………………… .…...…5.12 -1 PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Table of Contents City of Riverside
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.12.2.2 State Regulations…………………………………………… .………5.12 -1

5.12.2.3 Regional Regulations…………………………………… ..… ..……. 5.12-2

5.12.2.4 Local Regulations……………………………………………………5.12 -2

5.12.3 Comments Received in Response to NOP ..................................... 5.12-3

5.12.4 Project Design Considerations ........................................................ 5.12-3

5.12.5 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................. 5.12-3

5.12.6 E nvironmental Impacts ................................................................... 5.12-3

5.12.7 Proposed Mitigation Measures ........................................................ 5.12-4

5.12.8 Cumulative Environmental Effects ................................................. 5.12-4

5.12.9 References ..................................................................................... 5.12-4

5.13 Noise ............................................................................................... 5.13-1

5.13.1 Setting ............................................................................................ 5.13-1

5.13.2 Related Regulations ........................................................................ 5.13-8

5.13.2.1 Federal Regulations…………………………………………..5.13-8

5.13.2.2 State Regulations…… ……………….……………………….5.13 -9

5.13.2.3 Local Regulations……………………………………………..5.13 -9

5.13.3 Project Design Considerations ...................................................... 5.13-15

5.13.4 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................ 5.13-15

5.13.5 Environmental Impacts ................................................................. 5.13-16

5.13.6 Proposed Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 5.13-25

5.13.7 Cumulative Environmental Effects ................................................ 5.13-25

5.13.8 References ................................................................................... 5.13-27

5.14 Population and Housing ................................................................ 5.14-1

5.14.1 Setting .............................................................................................. 5.14-1

5.14.2 Regulatory Settings .......................................................................... 5.14-1

5.14.2.1 Federal Regulations ................................................................. 5.14-1

5.14.2.2 State Regulations ..................................................................... 5.14-1

5.14.2.3 Regional Regulations ............................................................... 5.14-2

5.14.2.4 Local Regulations ..................................................................... 5.14-2

5.14.3 C omments Received in Response to NOP ....................................... 5.14-3

5.14.4 Project Design Considerations ......................................................... 5.14-3

5.14.5 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................... 5.14-4

5.14.6 E nvironmental Impacts ..................................................................... 5.14-4

5.14.7 Proposed Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 5.14-5

5.14.8 Cumulative Environmental Effects .................................................... 5.14-5

5.14.9 References ....................................................................................... 5.14-5

5.15 Public Services ............................................................................... 5.15-1

5.15.1 Setting .............................................................................................. 5.15-1 PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Table of Contents
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

vii

5.15.2 R egulatory Setting ............................................................................ 5.15-2

5.14.2.1 Federal Regulations ................................................................. 5.15-2

5.14.2.2 State Regulations ..................................................................... 5.15-3

5.14.2.3 Regional Regulations ............................................................... 5.15-4

5.14.2.4 Local Regulations ..................................................................... 5.15-4

5.15.3 Comments Received in Response to NOP ....................................... 5.15-6

5.15.4 Project Design Considerations ......................................................... 5.15-6

5.15.5 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................... 5.15-6

5.15.6 Environmental Impacts ..................................................................... 5.15-7

5.15.7 Proposed Mitigation Measures ....................................................... 5.15-10

5.15.8 Cumulative Environmental Effects .................................................. 5.15-10

5.15.9 References ..................................................................................... 5.15-10

5.16 Recreation ..................................................................................................... 5.16-1

5.16.1 Setting ............................................................................................... 5.16-1

5.16.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................. 5.16-1

5.16.2.1 Federal Regulations .................................................................. 5.16-1

5.16.2.2 State Regulations ...................................................................... 5.16-1

5.16.2.3 Local Regulations ..................................................................... 5.16-2

5.16.3 Comments Received in Response to NOP ......................................... 5.16-3

5.16.4 Project Design Considerations ............................................................ 5.16-3

5.16.5 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................. 5.16-4

5.16.6 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................... 5.16-4

5.16.7 Proposed Mitigation measures ............................................................ 5.16-5

5.16.8 Cumulative Environmental Effects ...................................................... 5.16-6

5.16.9 References ......................................................................................... 5.16-6

5.17 Transportation ............................................................................................... 5.17-1

5.17.1 Setting .................................................................................................... 5.17-1

5.17.2 Related Regulations ............................................................................... 5.17-3

5.17.2.1 State Regulations ........................................................................... 5.17-3

5.17.2.2 Regional Regulations ..................................................................... 5.17-4

5.17.2.3 Local Regulations .......................................................................... 5.17-5

5.17.3 Project Design Considerations ................................................................ 5.17-7

5.17.4 Thresholds of Significance ...................................................................... 5.17-9

5.17.5 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................... 5.17-9

5.17.6 Proposed Mitigation Measure ............................................................... 5.17-22

5.17.7 Cumulative Environmental Effects ........................................................ 5.17-23

5.17.8 References ........................................................................................... 5.17-24

5.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................. 5.18-1

5.18.1 Setting .................................................................................................... 5.18-1

5.18.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................. 5.18-1 PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Table of Contents City of Riverside
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

viii

5.18.2.1 Federal Regulations ........................................................................ 5.18-1

5.18.2.2 State Regulations............................................................................ 5.18-1

5.18.2.3 Regional Regulations ...................................................................... 5.18-5

5.18.2.4 Local Regulations ........................................................................... 5.18-5

5.18.3 Project Design Considerations ................................................................ 5.18-5

5.18.4 Methodology ........................................................................................... 5.18-5

5.18.5 Threshold of Significance ........................................................................ 5.18-7

5.18.6 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................... 5.18-7

5.18.7 Proposed Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 5.18-8

5.18.8 Cumulative Environmental Effects .......................................................... 5.18-9

5.18.9 References ........................................................................................... 5.18-10

5.19 Utilities and Service System ......................................................................... 5.19-1

5.19.1 Setting .................................................................................................... 5.19-1

5.19.2 Related Regulations ............................................................................... 5.19-8

5.19.2.1 Federal Regulations ........................................................................ 5.19-8

5.19.2.2 State Regulation ............................................................................. 5.19-8

5.19.2.3 Regional Regulations .................................................................... 5.19-10

5.19.2.4 Local Regulations ......................................................................... 5.19-10

5.19.3 Project Design Considerations .............................................................. 5.19-13

5.19.4 Threshold of Significance ...................................................................... 5.19-14

5.19.5 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... 5.19-14

5.19.6 Proposed Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 5.19-20

5.19.7 Cumulative Environmental Effects ........................................................ 5.19-21

5.19.8 References ........................................................................................... 5.19-21

5.20 Wildfire ........................................................................................................... 5.20-1

5.20.1 Setting .................................................................................................... 5.20-1

5.20.2 Related Regulations ............................................................................... 5.20-2

5.20.2.1 Federal Regulations ........................................................................ 5.20-2

5.20.2.2 State and Regional Regulations ...................................................... 5.20-2

5. 20.2.3 Local Regulations ........................................................................... 5.20-5

5.20.3 Project Design Considerations ................................................................ 5.20-6

5.20.4 Threshold of Significance ........................................................................ 5.20-6

5.20.5 Environmental Impacts ........................................................................... 5.20-6

5.20.6 Proposed Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 5.20-10

5.20.7 Cumulative Environmental Effects ........................................................ 5.20-10

5.20.8 References ........................................................................................... 5.20-11

6.0 Other CEQA Topics .......................................................................................... 6.0-1

6.1 Consistency with Regional Plans ................................................................... 6.0-1

6.2 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................... 6.0-7

6.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ............................................. 6.0-7 PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Table of Contents
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

6.3.1 Use of Non-Renewable Resources ......................................................... 6.0-8

6.3.2 Commitment of Future Generations ........................................................ 6.0-8

6.4 Growth-Inducing Impacts ................................................................................ 6.0-9

6.4.1 Population Growth ................................................................................... 6.0-9

6.4.2 Economic Growth .................................................................................. 6.0-10

6.5 References ................................................................................................... 6.0-10

7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ............................................................... 7.0-1

7.0.1 Project Objectives ................................................................................... 7.0-1

7.0.2 Rationale for Alternative Selection ......................................................... 7.0-2

7.0.3 Alternative 1 – No Project / No Redevelopment ...................................... 7.0-2

7.0.4 Alternative 2 - Reduced Density Apartment Redevelopment ................... 7.0-9

7.0.5 Alternative 3 – Retail Development ...................................................... 7.0-15

7.0.6 Alternative 4 – Proposed Project at Off-Site Location ........................... 7.0-22

7.0.7 Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration ................................. 7.0-27

7.0.8 Environmentally Superior Alternative .................................................... 7.0-28

7.0.9 Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................. 7.0-29

Appendices
A. Notice of Preparation (NOP) & NOP Comment Letter
B. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Energy Impact Analysis
C. W estern Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis
D. Cultural Resources Assessment
E. Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation Report & Grading Plan Review and Geotechnical Update
F. Phase I ESA & Phase II ESA
G. Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan
H. Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis
I. Traffic Operation Analysis & Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis J. Sewer Capacity Study

List of Figures
Figure 3.0-1: Vicinity Map .......................................................................................... 3.0-2 Figure 3.0-2: USGS TOPO Map ................................................................................ 3.0-3 PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Table of Contents City of Riverside
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

Figure 3.0-3: Project Site Map ................................................................................... 3.0-4 Figure 3.0-4: General Plan Land Use Map….. ………………………………………… ...3.0-8 Figure 3.0-5: Zoning Map… ....................................................................................... 3.0-9 Figure 3.0-6: Tentative Parcel Map……………………………………………………….3.0-10 Figure 3.0-7A: Photo Location Map……………………………… ……………………….3.0-11 Figure 3.0-7B: Site Photos 1-4 ……………………………………………………………3.0- 12 Figure 3.0-7C Site Photos 5-8 ………………………. ……………………………………3.0 -13 Figure 3.0-8: Conceptual Site Plan ………………… ……………………………………. 3.0-18 Figure 3.0-9: Conceptual Wall and Fence Exhibit………………………………………. 3.0-21 Figure 3.0-10: Conceptual Landscape ………………………………………………… ...3.0-22

Figure 4.0-1: Cumulative Development Location Map ............................................... 4.0-4

Figure 5.1-1: Building C Perspective…………………… ..………………………………5. 1-10 Figure 5.1-2: Building B Perspective.……………………….……………………………5. 1-11 Figure 5.1-3: Building B Elevations…………………………………………………… ....5.1-12 Figure 5.1-4: Building C Elevations………………………………………………………. 5.1-13 Figure 5.1-5: Building D Elevations………………………………………………………. 5.1-14 Figure 5.1-6: Building E Elevations………………………………………………………. 5.1-15 Figure 5.1-7: Colors and Materials.………………………………………………………. 5.1-16 Figure 5.1-8: Lighting Plan……… ..…………………………………………………….…. 5.1-17 Figure 5.1-9: Pool Courtyard…… ...………………………………………………………. 5.1-18 Figure 5.1-10: Design Vision and Vibe………………………………………… ..…… …. 5.1-19

Figure 5.13-1: Noise Monitoring Locations ……………………………………………. ..5.13-6

Figure 5.17-1: Site Access..................................... …………………………………..5. 17-12

List of Tables
Table 1.0-1: Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts...................................................................................................................... 1 .0-7

Table 2.0-1: NOP and Scoping Meeting Comments .................................................. 2.0-4

Table 3.0-1: Site and Surrounding Land Use/Zoning Designations………………… ..3.0-7 Table 3.0-2: Residential Unit Details……………………………………………………. .3.0-15 Table 3.0-3: Building Development Standards………………………………………….3.0- 15 Table 3.0-4: Residential Unit Parking Requirement …………………. ……… .……….3.0- 16 Table 3.0-5: Parking Type Requirement ………………………………………………..3.0 -17

Table 4.0-1: Summary of Cumulative Development Projects ..................................... 4.0-3

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Table of Contents
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

Table 5.3-1: Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................... 5.3-2 Table 5.3-2: Summary of Health and Environment Effects of the Criteria Air Pollutions ............................................................................................................. 5.3-4 Table 5.3-3: Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin….. ............................................................................................................. 5.3-9 Table 5.3-4: Air Quality Concentrations in the Project Vicinity ................................. 5.3-10 Table 5.3-5: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................ 5.3-11 Table 5.3-6: Diesel Construction Equipment Used by Construction Phase .............. 5.3-21 Table 5.3-7: Short-Term Regional Construction Emission ....................................... 5.3-22 Table 5.3-8: Construction Localized Impacts Analysis ............................................. 5.3-23 Table 5.3-9: Project Operational Emissions (Ibs/day) .............................................. 5.3-24 Table 5.3-10: SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds .................................... 5.3-27

Table 5.6-1: California 2021 Total System Electric Generation .................................. 5.6-2 Table 5.6-2: RPU 2022 Power Content Mix ............................................................... 5.6-3 Table 5.6-3: Construction Fuel Usage ..................................................................... 5.6-13 Table 5.6-4: Estimated Annual Energy Use of the Project ....................................... 5.6-14

Table 5.8-1: Greenhouse Gases................................................................................ 5.8-3 Table 5.8-2: Global Warming Potential and Atmospheric Lifetimes of Selected Gases ....................................................................................................................... 5.8-6 Table 5.8-3: Top GHG Producing Countries and the European Union ....................... 5.8-7 Table 5.8-4: Construction GHG Emissions .............................................................. 5.8-30 Table 5.8-5: Long-Term Operational GHG Emissions .............................................. 5.8-31 Table 5.8-6: Project Consistency with Key Residential and Mixed-Use Project Attributes that Reduce GHGs .............................................................................. 5.8-32 Table 5.8-7: RRG CAP Project Consistency ............................................................ 5.8-35 Table 5.8-8: Project Consistency with Applicable RTP/SCS GHG Emissions Reduction Strategies ............................................................................................ 5.8-40

Table MA-1: Compatibility Zone Factors of the MARB/IPA LUCP, Zone C2 .............. 5.9-6 Table MA-2: Basic Compatibility Criteria, Zone C2 .................................................... 5.9-6 Table 5.9-1:

Constituents and Beneficial Uses for Receiving Waters ....................... 5.10-4

Table 5.11-1: Existing Site and Surrounding Land Use/Zoning……………………. …5.11 -3 Table MA-1: Compatibility Zone Factors of the MARB/IPA LUCP, Zone C2 ............ 5.11-4 Table MA-2: Basic Compatibility Criteria, Zone C2 .................................................. 5.11-5 Table 5.11-1: Consistency with Application General Plan Policies…………… .……5.11 -12

Table 5.13-1 Definitions of Acoustical Terms……………………………………………5.13 -1 Table 5.13-2: Common Sound Levels and Their Noise Sources…………… .……… ..5.13-2 Table 5.13-3: Short-Term Ambient Noise Level Measurements ………………… ..…. 5.13-7 Table 5.13-4: Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results………………………….5.13-8 PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Table of Contents City of Riverside
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

xii

Table 5.13-5: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure………………5.13 -12 Table 5.13-6: Exterior Noise Standards …………………………………………………5.13 -13 Table 5.13-7: Interior Noise Level Limits ………………………………………………..5.13 -14 Table 5.13-8: Construction Noise Levels …………………………………………….….5.13 -17 Table 5.13-9: Cumulative (2045) With Project Exterior Noise Levels…………… ……5.13 -20 Table 5.13-10: Interior Noise Levels and Required Noise Reduction . … ...…………. 5.13-21 Table 5.13-11: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance……………… .………… .5.13-23 Table 5.13-12: Potential Construction Vibration Damage…………………………… ...5.13-24

Table 5.16-1: Community Parks Located Near the Proposed Mission Grove Apartments…………………… ............................................................................ …. 5.16-1

Table 5.17-1: Regional and Project VMT Per Capita ............................................. 5.17-13 Table 5.17-2: Proposed Project’s Effect on VMT- City of Riverside ....................... 5.17-14 Table 5.17-3: Potential VMT Reduction Strategies ................................................ 5.17-20

Table 5.18-1: AB 52 Response Log ......................................................................... 5.18-4

Table 5.19-1: Existing Landfills ................................................................................ 5.19-2 Table 5.19-2: RPU 2022 Power Content Mix ........................................................... 5.19-2 Table 5.19-3: WMWD 2020 Water Supply, Acre-feet per year (AFY) ....................... 5.19-6 Table 5.19-4: WMWD Projected Water Supply ........................................................ 5.19-7 Table 5.19-5: WMWD Water Service Reliability- Normal Year ............................... 5.19-17 Table 5.19-6: WMWD Water Services Reliability – Single Dry Year ...................... 5.19-18 Table 5.19-7: WMWD Water Service Reliability – Five Consecutive Dry Year ....... 5.19-18

Table 7.0-1: Comparison of Alternatives Matrix ....................................................... 7.0-29

Acronyms, Units of Measurement, Chemical Symbols
Acronyms, units of measurement and chemical symbols used throughout the Draft EIR are identified in this section.

Acronyms
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB Assembly Bill
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AF Acre-feet
AFY Acre-feet per Year
AGR Agricultural Supply
ALUC Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Table of Contents
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

xiii

Acronyms
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
APA Administrative Procedure Act
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AT Plan Active Transportation Plan
AUSD Alvord Unified School District
BACMs Best Available Control Measures
BIOS Biogeographic Information and Observation System
BMPs Best Management Practices
BTU British Thermal Units
BUOW Burrowing Owl
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate average fuel economy
Cal/ARP California Emergency Management Agency’s Accidental Release Prevention
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAL/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal Green California Green Building Standards
Cal OES Governor’s Office of Emergency Service
Cal/OSHA California Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CBSC California Building Standard Commission
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDA Chino Desalter Authority
CDC Center for Disease Control
CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDSG Citywide Design Guidelines and Sign Guidelines
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Table of Contents City of Riverside
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

xiv

Acronyms
CFC California Fire Code
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geological Survey
CHWMP County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
CITY City of Riverside
CNDDB California Native Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
COC Chemicals of Concern
COG Council of Governments
COP Conference of the Parties
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineering
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CR Commercial Retail Zone
CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
CSO Complete Street Ordinance
CTC County Transportation Commissions
CTR Commute Trip Reduction Trip
CWA Clean Water Act
CWC California Water Code
DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
DIF Development Impact Fee
DMV Department of Motor Vehicle
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DR Design Review
DTSC Department of Toxic Substance Control
DWR Department of Water Resources
EIA Energy Information Administration
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
EV Electric Vehicle
EVSE Electrical Vehicle Charging Station
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAAOES FAA Obstruction Evaluation Service
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Table of Contents
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

Acronyms
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRMs Flood Insurance Rate Maps
FMMP Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program`
FP Fully Protected
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GCC Global Climate Change
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIS Geographic Information System
GPA General Plan Amendment
GWP Global Warming Potential
GWR Groundwater Recharge
HVAC Heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning
HWCL California Hazardous Waste Control Law
IBC International Building Code
IEPR Integrated Energy Policy Report
IPA Inland Port Airport
IPS LUCP Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRP Integrated Resource Plan
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
JPA Joint Powers Authority
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standards
LDMF Local Development Mitigation Fee
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LID Low-Impact Development
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LSA LSA Associates, Inc
LST Localized Significance Thresholds
LUCP Land Use Compatibility Plan
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MARB March Air Reserve Base
MHDR Medium High Density Residentials
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organizations
MRMHMP Mineral’s Resources and Mineral Hazard Mapping Program MRF Materials Recover Facility
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Table of Contents City of Riverside
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

xvi

Acronyms
MSHCP

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
MUN Municipal and Domestic Supply
MU-N Mixed-Use Neighborhood
MU-U Mixed-Use Urban
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan
NDCs Nationally Determined Contributions
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NOC Notice of Completion
NOD Notice of Determination
NOP Notice of Preparation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OAL Office of Administrative Law
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PID Photo ionization detector
PRC Public Resources Code
PTS Pedestrian Target Safeguard Plan
PUC Public Utilities Code
PV Photovoltaic
PWWFs Peak Wet Weather Flows
RCA Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority RCFCWCD Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District RCFD Riverside County Fire Department
RCHCA Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency
RCIP Riverside County Integrated Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCWRD Riverside County Waste Resources Department
REC Recognized Environmental Conditions
RFD Riverside Fire Department
RHN Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RIRO Right-in-right-out
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Table of Contents
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

xvii

Acronyms
RIVCO Riverside County Transportation Mode
RMC Riverside Municipal Code
ROW Right-of-way or rights-of-way
RP Rock Products
RPD Riverside Police Department
RPR Rare Plant Rank
RPU Riverside Public Utilities
RRG Riverside Restorative Growthprint
RRG-CAP Restorative Growthprint Climate Action Plan
RRG-EPAP Riverside Restorative Growthprint Economic Prosperity Action Plan RTA Riverside Transit Authority
RTPA Regional Transportation Plan Agency
RTP Regional Transportation Plans
RUSD Riverside Unified School District
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
RWQCP Regional Water Quality Control Plan
RZ Zoning Code Amendment
SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
SAR Second Assessment Report
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SARWQCB Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric
SF Square footage
SIP State Implementation Plan
SKRHCP Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SPA Specific Plan Amendment
SP Specific Plan
SP Service populations
SR State Route
SRA Source Receptor Area
SRRE Source Reduction Plan and Recycling Element
SSC Species of Special Concern
SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Table of Contents City of Riverside
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

xviii

Acronyms
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
TB Technical Background Report
TD Transportation Demand Management
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TMP Trails Master Plan
TOA Traffic Operational Analysis
TPM Tentative Parcel Map
TRI Toxics Release Inventory
TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
UCR University of California of Riverside
USDOT
USEPA
United States Department of Transportation
United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plant
VEC Vapor Encroachment Condition
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VP5 Vapor Samples Collected
WL Watch List
WoUS Waters of the State of the U.S.

WMWD Western Municipal Water District
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments
WRP Waste Recycling Plan
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WSC Water Shortage Contingency Plan
ZEV Zero Emissions Vehicle
ZC Change of Zone

Units of Measurement and Chemical Symbols
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
dBA Decibels
Du/ac Dwelling Units per acre
°F Degrees in Fahrenheit
gdi Quartz Diorite
GPM Gallons per minute
GWh Gigawatt hours
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Table of Contents
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

xix

Units of Measurement and Chemical Symbols
kBTU Thousands British Thermal Units
kWh Kilowatt hours
LCD Liquid Crystal Display
Ldn Day-night average noise level
Leq Equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax Maximum Instantaneous noise level
MGD Million gallons per day
MPG Miles per gallon
msl Mean Sea Level
Mt/yr
N2
Metric ton per year
Nitrogen
N2O Nitrous oxide
NF3 Nitrogen triflouride
NO Nitric oxide
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOX Oxides of nitrogen
O2 Oxygen
O3 Ozone
Pb Lead
PM Atmospheric Particulate Matter
PM10 Particulate matter 2.5 to 10 microns in diameter
PM2.5 Particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter Ppm Parts per million
PPt Parts per trillion
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
RMS Root Mean Square
ROG Reactive organic gases
SF6 Sulfur hexaflouride
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SO4 Sulfides
SOX Oxides of sulfur
SPL Sound Power Level
TPHg petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline
UVOCs Undifferentiated Volatile organic compounds
VdB Vibration Total Velocity Decibels
VOC Volatile organic compounds

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Executive Summary

1.0-1

1.0 Executive Summary
The purpose of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to evaluate and disclose potential environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the Mission Grove Apartments Project (Project). This section summarizes the characteristics of the Project, alternatives to the proposed Project, and the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed Project.

1.1 Project Applicant

Michelle Rubin, President
Regional Properties, Inc.
9150 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 210
Beverly Hills, CA 90212

1.2 Lead Agency

Veronica Hernandez, Senior Planner
City of Riverside
Community & Economic Development Department – Planning Division 3900 Main Street, 3rd floor
Riverside, California 92522

1.3 Project Description
The proposed Project includes a total of 347 studio, one- , two-, and three -bedroom residential apartment units within five, 4-story buildings. The project will include indoor amenities including a leasing office, clubroom, fitness center, and outdoor amenities including a pool and spa, outdoor seating and dining areas, and a dog park. The habitable gross square footage (SF) of the apartment community is 419,358 SF, the uninhabited square footage (e.g., garages, utility and storage closets) of the project is 55,143 SF in total. The gross square footage of the project is 474,501.The Project includes 604 parking spaces in total. Of these, 513 parking spaces will be dedicated for the Proposed apartment project, and 91 will be shared between the Proposed apartment project and the existing adjacent retail site.

The project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use Designation from C – Commercial to MU-U – Mixed-Use – Urban, to allow the residential land use. A Zone Change is also proposed to change the existing zoning of the site from CR-SP Commercial Retail and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones to MU -U-SP – Mixed Use- Urban and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones . Mixed Use -Urban zoning has been selected for this site to bring together medium- to high-density residential and retail development in a mixed -use environment. The Mixed Use- Urban zone will allow the proposed apartment project to be introduced into the existing retail environment and will create a f ramework for integration of uses with features such as pedestrian connectivity, walkability, and shared elements including parking.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executi ve Summary Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

1.0-2
The project also includes a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to the Mission Grove Specific Plan.

The SPA is to include Mixed-Use land use designation, zoning, and development standards.

The following environmental review and entitlements are requested for implementation of the project, Planning Case PR-2022-001359:

Discretionary Actions and Approvals
• General Plan Amendment (GP A) – to change the General Plan Land Use Designation from C - Commercial to MU-U - Mixed Use-Urban, to allow residential land use. • Zoning Code Amendment (RZ) – to change the zoning from CR -SP Commercial Retail and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones to MU -U-SP – Mixed Use-Urban and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones.
• Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) – to revise the Mission Grove Specific Plan. • Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 38598 – to subdivide the existing Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 26320 into two parcels for financing and conveyance purposes. • Design Review (DR) – for the proposed site design and building elevations. • Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Project.
• Airport Land U se Commission (ALUC) – determination of consistency or inconsistency with applicable airport land use compatibility criteria of the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (MARB/IPA LUCP).

Existing Site Conditions
The project site is a 9.92 acre parcel and is part of the 70 -acre Mission Grove Plaza Shopping Center. The project site is currently developed with a 104,231 square foot vacant retail building (a former K -Mart retail store) and an associated surface parking lot. The retail building was constructed in 1991. The former K -Mart retail store closed in October of 2020. The site also includes portions of a signalized intersection at Mission Grove Parkway, and a shared driveway providing ingress and egress from Mission Grove Parkway, for the shopping center.

Construction and Grading
Construction of the proposed project is expected to occur over approximately 28 months. The project is anticipated to be fully built and open in 2028. Construction activity would comply with the City’s Municipal Code Section 7.35.020 and would not occur between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, between the hours of 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM on Saturdays, or at any time on Sundays or federal holidays. Construction activity would consist of demolition, site preparation and grading, building construction, and paving.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Executive Summary

1.0-3
Grading would require a maximum cut and fill of 5 feet under the building, not including remedial grading. Proposed grading activities anticipate 5,118 cubic yards of cut and 5,950 cubic yards of fill on site, with a net soil import of 832 cubic yards. Additionally, there is a potential that some additional export of rock/boulders may be required if the rock/boulder material cannot be utilized in the landscaping on site. All construction activities, with the exception of the import of fill and the potential export of rock/boulders, would be on site, including staging of equipment and materials and construction worker parking.

Project Objectives
The proposed project intends to achieve the following objectives:
• Provide a high- quality residential development in close proximity to many existing amenities and transit corridors.
• Increase the type and amount of housing available consistent with the goals of the City’s Housing Element.
• Maximize the residential potential of the site to assist the City of Riverside in meeting project housing demand as part of the City’s housing needs and growth projections. • Use land resources more efficiently by providing a well-planned, infill redevelopment on a underutilized vacant site.
• Identify mixed-use development standards in the Specific Plan Amendment to create a framework for cohesive integration of uses.
• In furtherance of the City’s Climate Action Plan, replace aging building construction with green building practices and other sustainable development methods. • Create a mixed-use environment encouraging walkability. • Provide for enhanced residential architecture and aesthetically coherent design elements that are compatible and complementary with the existing surrounding residential built environment in terms of colors and materials and landscaping.

1.4 Alternatives
The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6, identify the parameters within which consideration and discussion of alternatives to the proposed Project should occur. As stated in this section of the guidelines, alternatives must focus on those that are potentially feasible, reduce significant impacts, and which attain most of the basic objectives of the Project.

Included in this analysis are four alternatives, including the CEQA -required “No Project” alternative, that involve changes to the Project that may reduce Project -related environmental impacts as identified in this DEIR. Alternatives have been developed to provide a reas onable range of options to consider that would help decision makers and the public understand the general implications of revising or eliminating certain components of the proposed Project.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executi ve Summary Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

1.0-4
The following alternatives are evaluated in this DEIR:
• Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
• Alternative 2: Lower Density ALUC Consistent Multi-Family Residential Project • Alternative 3: Retail Project Alternative
• Alternative 4: Off-Site Multi-Family Residential Project

Alternative 1 – No Project/ No Redevelopment
The No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative assumes that the proposed 347 residential unit development would not be constructed. Alternative 1 considers no redevelopment/disturbance on the Project site. As such, the entire 9.92- acre site would remain a 104,231- square-foot vacant retail building (a former K -Mart retail store) and an associated surface parking lot. The retail building was constructed in 1991 and the former K -Mart retail store closed in October of 2020.

Although there is no permanent tenant of the retail building, since vacated by K -Mart, it has had a temporary and seasonal tenant, the Spirit Halloween Costume Store. The No Project/ No Redevelopment Alternative would continue to be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of C Commercial, the existing zoning of CR-SP- Commercial Retail and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones and with the Mission Grove Specific Plan and would not require a GPA, RZ, SPA, or TPM. The No Project alternative would not fulfill any of the Project’s objectives as the existing site would not provide high- quality housing in close proximity to many amenities and high quality transit corridors, assist the City of Riverside in meeting housing needs; use land resources more efficiently with infill redevelopment on an underutilized vacant site; or further the City’s Climate Action Plan by replacing aging building construction with green building practices and other sustainable development methods. Under this alternative, no improvement s would be made to the Project site and the site would continue to be vacant with temporary/seasonal retail tenants. This alternative has no characteristics in common with the proposed Project nor any of the other alternatives as no proposed redevelopment would occur.

Alternative 2 – Lower Density ALUC Consistent Multi-Family Residential Project
This alternative assumes redevelopment of the site would occur with a high -quality residential development with a reduced density, such that it meets the density criteria of the C2 Compatibility Zone of the March Air Reserve Base/ Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan MARB/IPA LUCP). The density standard for the C2 zone is six or less dwelling units per acre (du/ac). As the Project site is 9.92 acres, in order to meet the C2 zone density criteria of 6.0 du/ac, only 58 dwelling units would be constructed. Under this alternative, a GPA would be required to change the land use designation to Mixed Use – Neighborhood (MU-N), with maximum of 10.0 dwelling units per acre, and associated zone change (MU-N) as well as a Specific Plan Amendment to the Mission Grove Specific Plan. A TPM may also be required under this alternative for leasing and financing purposes.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Executive Summary

1.0-5

Alternative 3 – Retail Project Alternative
This alternative assumes development of the site would occur that remains in accord with the current land use and zoning designations and retains the existing development with the 104,231 square foot retail building and an associated surface parking lot . Under this alternative, the existing retail building and associated surface parking lot would be retained, with only minor improvements to the inside of the building, the outside of the building, and/or associated surface parking lot and landscaping which would house a permanent retail tenant that would utilize the full square footage of the building for retail. Under this alternative, the land use designation and zoning would remain as is, and no SPA would be required.

Alternative 4 – Off-Site Multi-Family Residential Project This alternative assumes the proposed 347 residential apartment project would occur at an off - site location. This alternative does not include a specific off-site location; however, it is assumed for the purposes of this analysis that it would consist of redevelopment of a site similar in size and of a vacant or underutilized building or buildings within the City of Riverside. This development focuses on infill of abandoned or underutilized space. Alternative sites were not considered for this project, and thus, there are no specific off-site locations that were considered by the applicant to be evaluated under this alternative. It is assumed for the purposes of this analysis that the off- site alternative location would also require a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change from CR - Commercial to Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U), as with the proposed Project.

Refer to Section 7.0, Alternatives, for the complete alternatives analysis.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Crestview Apartments Project DEIR

1.0-6

1.5 Areas of Known Controversy
The City of Riverside circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR for a 30- day agency and public review period starting on October 28 th 2022 and ending on November 28th, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. The City distributed the NOP to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties. The City held a virtual EIR Public Scoping Meeting on November 2nd, 2022, aimed at providing information about the proposed Project and the CEQA process to members of public agencies, interested stakeholders, and residents/community members.

The city received only one comment letter in response to the NOP and no comments during the virtual scoping meeting. Appendix A of this EIR contains the NOP, and the comment letter received during the 30-day review period and a summary is included in Section 2.0, Introduction.

Primary areas of concern include the following:
• Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts;
• Reliance on fossil fuels and the Project’s energy impacts.

The public written comment in response to the NOP is summarized in Table 2 .0-1: NOP and Scoping Meeting Comments, which summarizes the comments and details where each is addressed in the EIR.

1.6 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-1 summarizes the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts (the impact after application of mitigation, if required). Impacts are categorized as follows:
• Significant and Unavoidable: An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
• Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures.

Such an impact requires findings under §15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. • Less than Significant: An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.
• No Impact: The proposed Project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Executive Summary

1.0-7

Table 1.0-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Aesthetics
Threshold A: Would the Project have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold B: Would the Project
substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic
highway?
No Impact None required No Impact
Threshold C: In non-urbanized areas,
would the Project substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from a publicly -
accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the
Project conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic
quality?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold D: Would the Project create
a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Threshold A: Would the Project
convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (“Farmland”), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
No impact None required No impact
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

1.0-8
Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to nonagricultural use?
Threshold B: Would the Project conflict
with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
No impact None required No impact
Threshold C: Would the Project
conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
No impact None required No impact
Threshold D: Would the Project result
in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
No impact None required No impact
Threshold E: Would the Project
involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non- agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non- forest
use?

No impact None required No impact
Air Quality
Threshold A: Would the Project conflict
with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold B: Would the Project result
in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable
Less than significant None required Less than significant PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Executive Summary

1.0-9

Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
Threshold C: Would the Project
expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold D: Would the Project result
in emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Biological Resources
Threshold A: Would the 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 regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U. S. Wildlife Service?
Potentially
significant without
mitigation
MM BIO-1: To avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to migratory birds and raptors, landscape vegetation
removal will take place outside of the bird nesting season of February 1 through August 31. If vegetation removal
must take place during nesting season, a pre-
c
onstruction nesting survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist (i.e., a biologist experienced with performing nesting bird presence/absence surveys and
experienced with identifying signs of active nesting)
within three (3) days prior to vegetation removal activities to ensure no active nests are present. If active nests are present, a protective avoidance buffer (a no work zone
buffer around the tree containing the active nest as
identified by the qualified biologist ) will be established until the young have fledged or the nest is determined to be inactive by the qualified biologist. The design of the avoidance buffer shall be reviewed and approved by a
qualified biologist in conjunction with the City. The size of the protective buffer will be determined by the qualified biologist depending on the nesting species. Vegetation
removal may resume once nesting activity is complete.

Less than significant
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

1.0-10
Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Threshold B: Would the 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 Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
No impact None required No Impact
Threshold C: Would the Project have a
substantial adverse effect on Federally-
protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
No impacts None required No Impact
Threshold D: Would the Project
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?
No impacts None required No Impact
Threshold E: Would the Project conflict
with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as
a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No impacts None required No impacts
Threshold F: Would the 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?
No impacts None required No impacts
Cultural Resources
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Executive Summary

1.0-11

Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Threshold A: Would the Project cause
a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to § 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines?
No impact None required No impact
Threshold B: Would the Project cause
a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5 of the
CEQA Guidelines?
Potentially
significant without
mitigation
MM CUL-1: Prior to grading permit issuance, if there are any changes to project site design and/or proposed
grades, the Applicant and the City shall contact
consulting tribes to provide an electronic copy of the
revised plans for review. Additional consultation sh all occur between the City, developer/applicant, and
consulting tribes to discuss any proposed changes and
review any new impacts and/or potential
avoidance/preservation of the cultural resources on the project site. The City and the developer/applicant shall make all attempts to avoid and/or preserve in place as
many cultural and paleontological resources as possible that are located on the project site if the site design and/or proposed grades should be revised. In the event of
inadvertent discoveries of archaeological resources,
work shall temporarily halt until agreements are executed with consulting tribe, to provide tribal monitoring for ground disturbing activities.

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

Less than significant
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

1.0-12
Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact

1. The project archaeologist, in
consultation with consulting tribes, the
Developer, and the City, shall develop an
Archaeological Monitoring Plan to address
the details, timing, and responsibility of all
archaeological and cultural activities that will
occur on the project site. Details in the plan
shall include:
a) Project grading and
development scheduling;
b) The development of a
rotating or simultaneous
schedule in coordination
with the developer/applicant
and the project
archaeologist for
designated Native American
Tribal Monitors from the
consulting tribes during
grading, excavation, and
ground-disturbing activities
on the site, including the
scheduling, safety
requirements, duties, scop e
of work, and Native
American Tribal Monitors’
authority to stop and redirect
grading activities in
coordination with all project
archaeologists;
c) The protocols and
stipulations that the
Applicant, tribes, and
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Executive Summary

1.0-13

Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
project
archaeologist/paleontologist
will fol low in the event of
inadvertent cultural
resources discoveries,
including any newly
discovered cultural resource
deposits, or nonrenewable
paleontological resources
that shall be subject to a
cultural resources
evaluation;
d) Treatment and final
disposition of any cultural
and paleontological
resources, sacred sites, and
human remains if
discovered on the project
site; and
e) The scheduling and timing
of the Cultural Sensitivity
Training noted in mitigation
measure MM-CUL-4.

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

1. Consulting Tribes Notified: within 24
hours of discovery, the consulting tribe(s)
shall be notified via email and phone.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

1.0-14
Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Consulting tribe(s) will be allowed access to
the discovery, in order to assist with the
significance evaluation.

2. Temporary Curation and Storage :

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

3. Treatment and Final Disposition: The
landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all
cultural resources, including sacred items,
burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts
and non-
human remains as part of the
required mitigation for impacts to cultural
resources. The Applicant shall relinquish the
artifacts through one or more of the following
methods and provide the City of Riverside
Community and Economic Development
Department with evidence of same:
a) Accommodate the process
for on- site reburial of the
discovered items with the
consulting Native American
tribes or bands. This shall
include measures and
provisions to protect the
future reburial area from any
future impacts. Reburial
shall not occur until all
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Executive Summary

1.0-15

Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
cataloguing and basic
recordation have been
completed;
b) A curation agreement with
an appropriate qualified
repository within Riverside
County that meets federal
standards per 36 CFR Part
79 and therefore will be
professionally cu rated and
made available to other
archaeologists/researchers
for further study. The
collections and associated
records shall be transferred,
including title, to an
appropriate curation facility
within Riverside County, to
be accompanied by
payment of the f ees
necessary for permanent
curation;
c) If more than one Native
American tribe or band is
involved with the project and
cannot come to a
consensus as to the
disposition of cultural
materials, they shall be
curated at the Western
Science Center or Riverside
Metropolitan Museum by
default; and
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

1.0-16
Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
d) At the completion of
grading, excavation, and
ground-disturbing activities
on the site, a Phase IV
Monitoring Report shall be
submitted to the City
documenting monitoring
activities conducted by the
project archaeologis t and
Native Tribal Monitors within
60 days of completion of
grading. This report shall
document the impacts to the
known resources on the
property; describe how each
mitigation measure was
fulfilled; document the type
of cultural resources
recovered and t he
disposition of such
resources; provide evidence
of the required cultural
sensitivity training for the
construction staff held
during the required pre -
grade meeting; and, in a
confidential appendix
include the daily/weekly
monitoring notes from the
archaeologist. All reports
produced will be submitted
to the city of Riverside,
Eastern Information Center,
and interested tribes.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Executive Summary

1.0-17

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

A Standard Condition of Approval will include the
following – Consistent with State Law:

Discovery of Human Remains: In the event that human
remains (or remains that may be human) are discover ed
at the Project site during grading or earthmoving, the
construction contractors, Project Archaeologist, and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately
stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. The Project proponent shall then inform
the Riverside County
Coroner and the City of Riverside Community &
Economic Development Department immediately, and
the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5(b) unless more current State law requirements
are in effect at the time of the discovery. Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of
discovered human remains until the coroner can
determine whether the remains are those of a Native
American. If human remains are determined as those of
Native American origin, the Applicant shall comply with PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

1.0-18
Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
the state relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC to
determine the most likely descendant(s). The MLD shall
complete his or her inspection and make
recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48
hours of being granted access to the site. The Disposition of the remains shall be overseen by the mos t likely
descendant(s) to determine the most appropriate means
of treating the human remains and any associated grave
artifacts.

The specific locations of Native American burials and
reburials will be proprietary and not disclosed to the
general public. The County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission in accordance with
California Public Resources Code 5097.98. No
photographs are to be taken except by the coroner,
with written approval by the consulting Tribe(s).

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

Threshold C: Would the Project disturb
any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than significant None required. Less than significant Energy
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Executive Summary

1.0-19

Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Threshold A: Would the Project result
in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction
or operation?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold B: Would the Project conflict
with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold C: Would the Project
achieve the goal of energy
conservation by the following?
 Decreasing overall per capita
energy consumption;
 Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels
such as coal, natural gas and oil;
and
 Increasing reliance on renewable
energy sources.

Less than significant None required Less than significant Geology and Soils
Threshold A: Would the Project
directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving: i) rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42; ii) strong
seismic g round shaking; iii) seismic -
Less than significant None required Less than significant PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

1.0-20
Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
related ground failure, including
liquefaction; and/or iv) landslides?

Threshold B: Would the Project result
in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold C: Will the Project be
located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on -or off -site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold D: Will the Project be
located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold E: Would the Project have
soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
No impact None required No impact
Threshold F: Will the Project directly or
indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
Potentially
significant without
mitigation
MM GEO-1: If one or more fossils are discovered during
construction, all ground disturbing activities within 50 feet of the area of the find shall be ceased and the applicant shall retain a paleontologist who meets the Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) qualifications standards
for the Project Paleontologist to oversee the
documentation of the extent and potential significance of Less than significant
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Executive Summary

1.0-21

Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
the finds as well as recovery efforts. Ground -disturbing activities may resume in the area of the finds at the
discretion of the Project Paleontologist. If the fossils are significant per the SVP’s 2010 criteria, then
paleontological monitoring shall be conducted on an as - needed basis for further ground-disturbing activities in the Project area.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold A: Would the Project
generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold B: Would the Project
conflict with an applicable plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Hazards
Threshold A: Would the Project
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold B: Would the Project
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold C: Would the Project emit
hazardous emissions or handle
No impact None required Less than significant
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

1.0-22
Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Threshold D: Would the Project be
located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold E: Would the Project be
located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in t he
project area?
Significant and
unavoidable impact
None required Less than significant
Threshold F: Would the Project impair
implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Less that significant None required Less than significant Threshold G: Would the Project
expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residen ces are
intermixed with wildlands?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Hydrology & Water Quality
Threshold A: Would the Project
violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
Less than significant None required Less than significant PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Executive Summary

1.0-23

Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
Threshold B: Would the Project
substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold C: Would the Project
substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition
of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:

i) result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;

ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite;

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

iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than significant None required Less than significant PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

1.0-24
Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Threshold D: Would the Project, in
flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
No impact None required Less than significant
Threshold E: Would the Project
conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Land Use and Planning
Threshold A: Would the Project
physically divide an established
community?
No impact None required Less than significant
Threshold B: Would the Project cause
a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulati on adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Significant and
unavoidable
None feasible that would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels
Significant and
unavoidable
Mineral Resources
Threshold A: Would the Project result
in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value
to the region and the residents of the
state?
No impact No impact No impact
Threshold B: Would the Project result
in the loss of availability of a locally -
important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
No impact No impact No impact
Noise
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Executive Summary

1.0-25

Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Threshold A: Would the Project result
in the generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold B: Would the Project result
in the generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold C: For a project located
within the vicinity of a private airstrip or
an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, expose people residing or
working in the project are to excessive
noise levels?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Thresholds A - C Less than significant Applicable Mission Grove Specific Plan mitigation measures:

MM NOISE-1: The use and proper maintenance of
noise reducing devices on construction equipment
will minimize construction-related noise.

MM NOISE-2: Construction activities will take place
only during those days and hours specified in the
City Noise Ordinance to reduce noise impacts
during more sensitive time periods.

MM NOISE-3: A program to inform prospective
purchasers of dwelling units within the Specific Plan
Less than significant
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

1.0-26
Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
area of high aircraft noise levels shall be submitted
by the developer of City review and approval prior to
issuance of any residential building permits. This
program shall include a letter to be provided to the
purchaser prior to completion of the sale.

MM NOISE -4: Appropriate avigation and noise
easements for all residentially developed property
shall be prepared for City and U.S. Air Force review
and approval a nd recorded prior to approval of
implementing land division proposals or issuance of
any individual building permits if no land division is
proposed.

Population and Housing
Threshold A: Would the Project induce
substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold B: Displace substantial
numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No impact None required No impact
Public Services
Threshold A: Would the Project result
in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
Less than significant None required Less than significant PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Executive Summary

1.0-27

Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
significant environmental i mpacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
• Fire protection,
• Police protection,
• Schools,
• Parks,
• Other public facilities?
Recreation
Threshold A: Would the Project
increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold B: Would the Project
include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Transportation
Threshold A: Would the Project
conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold B: Would the Project
conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Significant and
unavoidable impacts
None required Significant and
unavoidable
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

1.0-28
Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Threshold C: Substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold D: Result in inadequate
emergency access?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold A: Would the Project cause
a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe that is
• listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
• a resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in
Potentially
significant without
mitigation
MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4 as previously discussed
above in Cultural Resources.

Less than significant
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Executive Summary

1.0-29

Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, would the
lead agency consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe?
Utilities and Service Systems
Threshold A: Would the Project
require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant envir onmental
effects?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold B: Would the Project have
sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold C: Would the Project result
in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold D: Would the Project
generate solid waste in excess of State
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
Less than significant None required Less than significant PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

1.0-30
Impact Significance Pre-
mitigation
Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Threshold E: Comply with federal,
state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Wildfire
Threshold A: Would the Project
Substantially impair an adopted
emergency re sponse plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold B: Due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other factors, would the
Project exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose Project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold C: Would the Project
require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines, or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
Less than significant None required Less than
Significant
Threshold D: Would the Project
expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or landslides,
as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Less than significant None required Less than significant Threshold F: Would the Project
expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
Less than significant None required Less than significant

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 2.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Introduction

2.0-1

2.0 Introduction

2.1 Purpose and Scope
In accordance with Section 15121 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the purpose of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to serve as an informational document that:

Will inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimi ze the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project (California Code of Regulations, Title 14).

This EIR has been prepared as a project EIR pursuant to Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines.

A Project EIR is appropriate for a specific development project. The CEQA Guidelines state:

This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project, including planning, construction, and operation.

This EIR discloses the potential environmental consequences from the implementation of the Mission Grove Apartments Project, a proposed multi-family residential development located in the eastern portion of the City of Riverside, east of Trautwein Road, west of Mission Grove Parkway, south of Alessandro Boulevard, and north of Mission Village Drive, Figure 3.0 -3 – Project Site Map.

The Mission Grove Apartments Project (hereafter referred to as the “Project”) would be constructed on an approximately 9.92-acre site. The project site is currently developed with a 104,231 square foot vacant retail building (a former K-Mart retail store) and an associated surface parking lot. The retail building was constructed in 1991. The former K -Mart retail store closed in October of 2020. The site also includes portions of a signalized intersection at Mission Grove Parkway, and a shared driveway providing ingress and egress from Mission Grove Parkway for the shopping center.

The proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the existing General Plan Land Use Designation of the project site from C - Commercial to MU-U - Mixed Use-Urban, to allow residential land use. The proposed Project includes a Zoning Code Amendment (RZ) to change the existing zoning of the project site from CR -SP Commercial Retail and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones to MU-U- SP – Mixed Use -Urban and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to revise the Mission Grove Specific Plan to include Mixed-Use – Urban land use on 9.92 acres and reduce the Non-Residential, Retail Business & Office land use by 9.92 acres.

Development of the Project would involve demolition and site clearing, grading and compaction, pouring of concrete and asphalt, and construction and operation of the proposed structures. The proposed Project includes a total of 347 studio, one -, two -, and three- bedroom residential PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Introduction Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

2.0-2
apartment units within five, 4- story buildings. The proposed Project is anticipated to house approximately 829 tenants. The project will include indoor amenities including a leasing office, clubroom, fitness center, and outdoor amenities including a pool and spa, outdoor seating and dining areas, and a dog park. The habitable gross square footage (SF) of the apartment community is 419,358 SF, the uninhabited square footage (e.g. garages, utility and storage closets) of the project is 55,143 SF in total. The gross square footage of the project is 474,501 SF. The Project includes 604 parking spaces in total. Of these, 513 parking spaces will be dedicated for the Proposed apartment project, and 91 will be shared between the Proposed apartment project and the existing adjacent retail site. The shared parking will be memorialized in a new covenant and restriction agreement between the residential developer and Mission Grove Plaza.

This EIR is to serve as an informational document for the public and City of Riverside (City) decision makers. The process to finalize the EIR includes public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council to consider certification of a Final EIR and approval of the Project.

This section discusses (1) the EIR background; (2) the legal basis for preparing an EIR; (3) the scope and content of the EIR; (4) the lead, the responsible, and the trustee agencies; and (5) the environmental review process required by CEQA. The proposed Project is described in more detail in Section 3.0, Project Description.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 2.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Introduction

2.0-3

2.2 Legal Authority
The City, as “Lead Agency,” prepared this EIR in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines), Sections 15000-15387 of the California Code of Regulations, and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The Project considered in this EIR is a “project,” as defined by Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that an EIR must be prepared for any project that may have a significant impact on the environment. The City, as the Lead Agency, has determined the Project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and, therefore, preparation of an EIR was required for Project approval.

2.3 Environmental Procedure
The EIR process typically consists of three (3) parts: the Notice of Preparation (NOP), the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR. Pursuant to Section 15060(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City initiated the environmental process with the preparation of an Initial Study (Environmental Checklist) for the Project to determine if it would have a significant effect on the environmental. Appendix A includes a copy of the NOP.

The City circulated the NOP of the EIR for a 30- day agency and public review period starting October 28, 2022 and ending on November 28, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. The City distributed the NOP to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties.

The City held a virtual EIR Public Scoping Meeting on November 2, 2022, from 6 PM to 7 PM.

The meeting aimed to provide information about the Project and the CEQA process to members of public agencies, interested stakeholders, and residents/community members. The NOP and all comments received during the 30- day review period are provided in Appendix A. Table 2.0 -1 summarizes written comments from agencies and interested parties in response to the NOP and the virtual Scoping Meeting; it also details where each is addressed in the EIR.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Introduction Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

2.0-4
Table 2.0-1: NOP and Scoping Meeting Comments
Commenter Primary Comments to Address Where in EIR it is addressed
Agency Comments
None received.

Native American Tribe Comments
None received.

Public Comments
Earthjustice Earthjustice states it is important to incorporate building electrification requirements into the Project. New
construction that relies on burning gas for end uses
such as cooking and space and water heating has
significant greenhouse gas (GHG), energy, and health
impacts. One option to determine the significance of
the Project’s GHG impacts is to apply a net-zero
emissions threshold. Another option is to apply the
approach recently adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District in which it updated its CEQA
GHG Guidance to require all new projects be built
without natural gas in order to receive a finding of no significant impact. Earthjustice strongly cautions
against using approaches to determine the significance
of Project GHG impacts that involve comparisons
against “business-as-usual” emissions or per capita
emissions metric.

A detailed project
description is contained in
Section 3.0 Project
Description.

Potential impacts related
to GHG and energy and
the CEQA thresholds that
are used in the analysis
are discussed in Section

5.7 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Section 5.6
Energy, of this EIR.

Earthjustice states a key purpose of the evaluation of
project energy impacts under CEQA is decreasing
reliance on fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas and oil. Addressing energy impacts of proposed projects
requires more than mere compliance with Title Building
Energy Efficiency Standards. Including gas hook-ups in
new projects, and thereby perpetuating reliance on
fossil fuels, is contrary to California’s energy objectives and should be considered a significant impact under
CEQA. Gas appliances are also inherently wasteful
because they are significantly less efficient that their electric alternatives.

Potential impacts related
to GHG and energy and
the CEQA thresholds that
are used in the analysis
are discussed in Section

5.7 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Section 5.6
Energy, of this EIR.

Earthjustice states CEQA also requires consideration
of “health and safety problems” that may result from a
project’s emissions. The health and safety hazards of
gas-burning appliances in buildings are well-
documented by the California Air Resources Board, the
California Energy Commission, and numerous peer-
reviewed academic studies. Gas appliances contribute
A detailed project
description is contained in
Section 3.0 Project
Description.

Potential impacts related
to GHG and energy and
the CEQA thresholds that
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 2.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Introduction

2.0-5
Commenter Primary Comments to Address Where in EIR it is addressed
to indoor air pollution even when they are not turned
on.
are used in the analysis
are discussed in Section

5.7 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Section 5.6
Energy, of this EIR.

A lead agency may not lawfully approve a project
where there are feasible alternatives or feasible
mitigation measures available which would substantial
lessen its significant environmental effects. Eliminating natural gas use in new buildings is feasible mitigation that will substantially lessen the project’s GHG, energy, and air quality/health impacts. All-electric new
construction is also an economically feasible mitigation measure to avoid the health impacts of gas, particularly the indoor air pollution impacts in residential buildings.

They urge incorporation of all-electric building design into the project.

Potential impacts related
to GHG and energy and if
any mitigation measures
are required are discussed
in Section 5.7 Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and
Section 5.6 Energy, of this
EIR.

2.4 Scope and Content
This EIR addresses impacts identified to be potentially significant. The following issues have been studied in the EIR:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture/ Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards & Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology/ Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population/ Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Introduction Crestview Apartments Project DEIR

2.0-6
EIR preparation included use of pertinent City policies and guidelines, certified EIRs and adopted CEQA documents, and other background documents. References are provided at the end of each section.

The alternatives section of the EIR (Section 7 .0) was prepared in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines and focuses on alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing significant adverse effects associated with the project while potentially and feasibly attaining most of the basic project objectives. The alternatives section identifies the "environmentally superior" alternative among the alternatives assessed; the evaluation included the CEQA -required "No Project" alternative and three alternative development scenarios for the Project.

The level of detail throughout this EIR is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and applicable court decisions. Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines provides the standard of adequacy on which this document is based, as follows:

An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision- makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.

2.5 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies
The CEQA Guidelines define lead, responsible, and trustee agencies. The City is the lead agency for the Project because the City holds principal responsibility for approving the Project.

A responsible agency refers to a public agency other than the lead agency with discretionary approval over the Project. Responsible agencies for the Project include:
• California State Water Resources Control Board for General Construction Storm Water Permit.
• Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for consistency review with the 2014 March Air Reserve Base/ Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan as the project site is located in the C2 Compatibility Zone.

A trustee agency refers to a State agency with legal jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project. No trustee agencies have been identified for the Project.

2.6 EIR Format
This EIR has been organized in several sections as follows:

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 2.0
Crestview Apartments Project DEIR Introduction

2.0-7
• Table of Contents . Assists readers in locating the analysis of different subjects and issues as required by Section 15122 of the State CEQA Guidelines. A list of acronyms used in the EIR is included in the table of contents.
• Section 1.0 – Executive Summary. Identifies the summary requirements of CEQA as required by Section 15123 of the State CEQA Guidelines and includes: the Project location, a brief P roject description, a matrix containing a summary of environmental impacts and mitigation measures, Project objectives, approvals related to the P roject, areas of controversy, and a brief description of the Project alternatives. • Section 2.0 – Introduction. Describes the scope and purpose of the EIR, identifies the lead agency, and provides a brief summary of the CEQA process to date. • Section 3.0 – Project Description. Contains the information required by Section 15124 of the State CEQA Guidelines including: a detailed description of the Project, the Project objectives, a general description of the Project’s environmental setting, the approvals needed to implement the Project, and a list of agencies expected to use the DEIR. • Section 4 .0 – Environmental Setting. Identifies the regional setting, the project site setting, and the cumulative development setting.
• Section 5.0 – Environmental Impact Analysis. Satisfies the requirements of Sections 15125, 15126, 15126.2, and 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines by in cluding an analysis of each environmental issue area determined to have potentially significant impacts during preparation of the NOP or as a result of comments received in response to the NOP. For each issue area analyzed, this section includes a discussion of the setting to which each issue area is analyzed against, defines the related regulations affecting the Project, identifies the thresholds used to determine significance, describes any P roject design features that would reduce impacts, analyzes the P roject’s impacts, provides a description of the mitigation measures used to reduce or lessen potential impacts, and discusses the Project’s impacts after implementation of mitigation. This section also includes the Project’s cumulative impact analysis.
• Section 6.0 – Other CEQA Topics. Includes an analysis of the Project’s consistency with applicable regional plans, irreversible environmental effects, and growth inducing impacts. • Section 7.0 – A lternatives. Satisfies the requirements of Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines by identifying and discussing the “No Project” alternative in addition to alternatives to the Project that lessen the severity of significant impacts and identifying the environmentally superior alternative.
• Section 8 – References. Includes a listing of all reference materials, the organizations and persons contacted in preparing the EIR, and a list of preparers as required by Section 15129 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Introduction Crestview Apartments Project DEIR

2.0-8

2.7 Environmental Review Process
The environmental review process, as required under CEQA, is summ arized below. The steps are presented in sequential order.

1. NOP. After deciding an EIR is required, the Lead Agency (City) must publicly circulate an NOP soliciting input on the EIR scope to the State Clearinghouse, other concerned agencies, and parties previously requesting notice in writing (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; Public Resources Code Section 21092.2). The NOP must be posted in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days. The NOP may be accompanied by an Initial Study that identifies the issue areas for which the Project would create significant environmental impacts.

2. DEIR Prepared. The Draft EIR must contain a) table of contents or index; b) summary; c) project description; d) environmental setting; e) discussion of significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, growth- inducing, and unavoidable impacts ); f) a discussion of alternatives; g) mitigation measures; and h) discussion of irreversible changes.

3. Notice of Completion (NOC). The lead agency must file a NOC with the State Clearinghouse when it completes a D raft EIR and prepare a Public Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR. The lead agency must place the NOC in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days (Public Resource Code Section 21092) and send a copy of the NOC to anyone requesting it (CEQA Guidelines Section 15087). Additionally, public notice of D raft EIR availability must be given through at least one of the following procedures: a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation; b) posting on and off the Project site; c) direct mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous properties. The lead agency must solicit input from other agencies and the public, and respond to writing to all comments received (Public Resources Code Sections 21104 and 21253). The minimum public review period for a D raft EIR is 30 days. When a Draft EIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse for a review, the public review must be 45 days unless the State Clearinghouse approves a shorter period (Public Resource Code 21091).

4. Final EIR. A Final EIR must include a) the Draft EIR; b) copies of comments received during public review of the D raft EIR; c) list of persons and entities commenting; d) responses to comments and e) any errata to Draft EIR.

5. Certification of Final EIR. Prior to making any decision on a proposed project, the lead agency must certify that a) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the Final EIR was presented to the decision- making body of the lead agency; c) the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final E IR prior to approving a project, and d) the Final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgement and analysis (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090).

6. Lead Agency Project Decision. The lead agency may a) disapprove the project because of its significant environmental effects; b) require changes to the project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or c) approve the project despite its significant PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 2.0
Crestview Apartments Project DEIR Introduction

2.0-9
environmental effects, if the proper findings and a statement of overriding considerations are adopted (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043).

7. Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the lead agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that either a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; b) changes to the project are within another agency’s jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency’s decision.

8. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program . When the lead agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects.

9. Notice of Determination (NOD). The lead agency should file an NOD after deciding to approve a project for which an EIR is prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094). A local agency must file the NOD with the county clerk. The NOD must be posted for 30 days and sent to anyone previously requesting notice. Posting of the NOD starts a 30-day status of limitations on CEQA legal challenges (Public Resources Code Section 21169[c]).

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 3
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Project Description

3.0-1

3.0 Project Description
This section describes the project location, the existing conditions, the project site and surrounding land uses, major project characteristics, project objectives, and discretionary actions needed for approval.

3.1 Project Location
The Project is located approximately 10 miles south of Downtown Riverside. The regional setting of the Project is shown in Figure 3.0-1 - Regional Map. The Project site is within the southwestern quarter of Section 17 , Township 3 South, Range 4 West, as shown on the Riverside East, California, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle, Figure 3.0-2 - USGS Topographic Map. The Project site is located in the eastern portion of the City of Riverside, east of Trautwein Road, west of Mission Grove Parkway, south of Alessandro Boulevard, and north of Mission Village Drive, Figure 3.0-3 – Project Site Map.

The project site address is 375 E. Alessandro Boulevard, Riverside, CA 92508. The Assessor’s Parcel Number is 276 -110-018. The project site is part of the Mission Grove Plaza Shopping Center and is currently developed with a former K-Mart retail store that closed in October of 2020.

The surrounding areas include the Mission Grove retail shopping center to the east, west, and north, and single- family residences to the south (across Mission Village Drive). Multi -family residences are also located to the north (across Alessandro Boulevard). .

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

MISSION GROVE APARTMENTS
Regional Map
Figure 3.0-1
¯
0 10 205
Miles
^
Project Location
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

MISSION GROVE APARTMENTS
USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3.0-2
¯
0 2,000 4,0001,000
Feet
Project Location
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR

MISSION GROVE APARTMENTS
Project Site Map
Figure 3.0-3
Source: Bing Aerial Microsoft Corporation 2020, Datum: NAD 83, Coordinate Sytem: State Plane 6 Date: 08/21/2020 G:\Projects\2022-0049 Mission Grove\Maps\2022-0049AerialSitemap_Fig3.0-2.mxd ¯
Legend
Project Site
Mission Grove Pkwy
E. Alessandro Blvd
Mission Village Dr
0 150 30075
Feet
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 3
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Project Description

3.0-5

3.2 Existing Site Characteristics

3.2.1 Project Site Background
The project site is a 9.92 acre parcel and is part of the 70 -acre Mission Grove Plaza Shopping Center. The project site is currently developed with a 104,231 square foot vacant retail building (a former K -Mart retail store) and an associated surface parking lot. The retail building was constructed in 1991. The former K -Mart retail store closed in October of 2020. The site also includes portions of a signalized intersection at Mission Grove Parkway, and a shared driveway providing ingress and egress from Mission Grove Parkway, for the shopping center.

Mission Grove Specific Plan
The Mission Grove Specific Plan, formerly known as the Alessandro Heights Specific Plan, was adopted in 1985. The Mission Grove Specific Plan is a master -planned development to provide industrial and residential land uses in a park like atmosphere. As the 650-acre Specific Plan area is the eastern gateway into central Riverside, the development endeavored to create an entry statement that is attractive, and of the highest quality, reflecting Riverside’s best assets. The Specific Plan is made up of a mix of land uses including 85 acres of industrial use, 403 acres of varying density residential, 69 acres of retail commercial, 10 acres of public facilities and institutions, and public streets. As part of Annexation Case No. 54, 531 acres of the Specific Plan area were annexed into the City of Riverside on June 25, 1985. Numerous amendments have been made to the Specific Plan from 1986 through 1997. As shown in Figure 3 – Original Land Use of the Specific Plan, the project site is located within an area designated as Retail Business & Office and generally in the central portion of the Specific Plan.

March Airport Land Use Compatibility (ALUC) Plan
The March Air Reserve Base (ARB) is located east of the project site and the Mission Grove Specific Plan. For most of the second half of the twentieth century, the base was known as March Air Force Base. The current March Air Reserve Base name became official in 1996 as a result of recommendations of the 1993 Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission. Although the role of March ARB has evolved over time, the runway system and other basic aeronautical components of the base have existed in largely their present configuration since the World War II era. The airport’s primary runway, oriented north- northwest/south-southeast, is 13,300 feet in length, making it one of the longest in the state, enabling it to accommodate nearly any type of military or civilian aircraft.

The basic function of airport land use compatibility plans is to promote compatibility between airports and the land uses that surround them. Compatibility plans serve as a tool for use by airport land use commissions in fulfilling their duty to review proposed development plans for airports and surrounding land uses. In addition, compatibility plans set c ompatibility criteria applicable to local agencies in their preparation or amendment of land use plans and ordinances in their design of new development.

The proposed Project is located in the C2 Compatibility Zone of the March Air Reserve Base/ Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, which was adopted November 13, 2014.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 3 City of Riverside
Project Description Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

3.0-6

3.2.2 Current and Proposed Land Use , Zoning & Specific Plan The current land use of the project site is a vacant retail site. The General Plan designation for the project site is C - Commercial and it is currently zoned as CR-SP - Commercial Retail and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones. The site is designated as Retail Business & Office within the Mission Grove Specific Plan.

The project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use Designation from C – Commercial to MU-U – Mixed-Use – Urban, to allow the residential land use. A Zone Change is also proposed from CR – Commercial Retail – to MU-U – Mixed-use Urban. Mixed Use-Urban zoning has been selected for this site to bring together medium- to high- density residential and retail development in a mixed use environment. The Mixed Use -Urban zone will allow the proposed apartment project to be introduced into the existing retail environment and will create a framework for integration of uses with features such as pedestrian connectivity, walkability, and shared elements including parking. The existing and proposed General Plan Land Use Designations and zoning are shown in Figure 3.0-4 General Plan Land Use Map and Figure

3.0-5 Zoning, respectively.

The project also includes a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to the Mission Grove Specific Plan.

The SPA introduces the residential land use and provides for specific design guidelines integrating both land uses.

3.2.3 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
The site is bordered on the north, west, and east (across Mission Grove Parkway) by the Mission Grove Plaza Shopping Center, which has a General Plan Land Use Designation of C - Commercial and is zoned CR-SP - Commercial Retail and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones, and is developed with retail uses. Multi-family residences are located further north (across Alessandro Boulevard), which have a General Plan Land Use Designation of HDR – High-Density Residential, and are zoned R -3-3000-SP – Multi-Family Residential and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones. The project site is bordered on the south by a single- family residential neighborhood (across Mission Village Drive), which has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) and is zoned R-1-7000-SP – Single-Family Residential and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones.

Table 3.0-1 details the land use and zoning of the project site and its surrounding areas. A photo location map and photos of the Project site and surrounding areas are included in Figure 3.0-6A through 3.0-6C.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 3
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Project Description

3.0-7
Table 3.0-1: Site and Surrounding Land Use/Zoning Designations Existing Land Use General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Specific Plan Designation
Project
Site
Commercial Retail C – Commercial CR-SP – Commercial
Retail and Specific Plan
(Mission Grove) Overlay
Zone
Retail Business &
Office
North

Commercial Retail C – Commercial CR-SP - Commercial
Retail and Specific Plan
(Mission Grove) Overlay
Zone
Retail Business &
Office
East
(across
Mission
Grove
Parkway.)
Commercial Retail C – Commercial CR-SP - Commercial
Retail and Specific Plan
(Mission Grove) Overlay
Zone
Retail Business &
Office and Medium
High Density
Residential
South
(across
Mission
Village
Drive.)
Single Family Residential MHDR - Medium High
Density Residential
R-1-7000 and Specific
Plan (Mission Grove)
Overlay Zone
Medium High
Density
Residential
West
Commercial Retail C - Commercial CR-SP - Commercial
Retail and Specific Plan
(Mission Grove) Overlay
Zone
Retail Business &
Office

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR

MISSION GROVE APARTMENTS
General Plan Land Use Map
Figure 3.0-
Source: Bing Aerial Microsoft Corporation 2020, Datum: NAD 83, Coordinate Sytem: State Plane 6 Date: 08/21/2020 G:\Projects\2022-0049 Mission Grove\Maps\2022-0049GeneralPlan.mxd ¯
¯
Legend
Site APN Boundary
C - Commercial
HDR - High Density Residential
MDR - Medium Density Residential
MHDR - Medium High Density Residential
Legend
Site APN Boundary
MU-U Mixed Use - Urban
C - Commercial
HDR - High Density Residential
MDR - Medium Density Residential
MHDR - Medium High Density Residential
Existing General Plan Designation
Proposed General Plan Designation
Mission Village Dr
0 200 400100
Feet
Mission Grove Pkwy
0 200 400100
Feet
Mission Village Dr
Mission Grove Pkwy
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR

MISSION GROVE APARTMENTS
Zoning Map
Figure 3.0-
Source: Bing Aerial Microsoft Corporation 2020, Datum: NAD 83, Coordinate Sytem: State Plane 6 Date: 08/21/2020 G:\Projects\2022-0049 Mission Grove\Maps\2022-0049Zoning.mxd ¯
Mission Village Dr.

Mission Grove Pkwy
¯Legend
Project APN Boundary
CR - Commercial Retail Zone
R3-4000 - Multi-Family Residential Zone
R1-7000 - Single Family Residential Zone
Legend
Project APN Boundary
MU-U - Mixed Use Urban Zone
CR - Commercial Retail Zone
R3-4000 - Multi-Family Residential Zone
R1-7000 - Single Family Residential Zone
Existing Zoning
Proposed Zoning
02 0 0 4 0 0100
Feet
02 0 0 4 0 0100
Feet
Mission Grove Pkwy
Mission Village Dr.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
0,66,21*529($3$570(176352-(&7
7HQWDWLYH3DUFHO0DS
)LJXUH
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR

MISSION GROVE APARTMENTS PROJECT
Figure 3.0-7A – Site Photographs Photo Location Map
N
1 2
3/4
5 6
7/8
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Photo 1: View South, showing current project site existing structures/buildings. Photo 2: View North, showing current site parking lot area and surrounding businesses.

Photo 3: View Southwest showing current project site existing conditions. Photo 4: View Northwest, showing current project site existing conditions.

MISSION GROVE APARTMENTS PROJECT
Figure 3.0-7B – Site Photographs
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Photo 5: View Southwest of eastern side of project site existing structure. Photo 6: View Northwest of southern side of project site existing structure and active recycling center structure.

Photo 7: View Northeast of southern side of project site existing structure, also showing active recycling center structure.

Photo 8: View South/Southwest, showing views of existing residential uses to the South of the project site.

MISSION GROVE APARTMENTS PROJECT
Figure 3.0-7C – Site Photographs
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 3 City of Riverside
Project Description Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

3.0-14

3.3 Proposed Entitlements

3.3.1 General Plan Amendment
The proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the existing General Plan Land Use Designation of the project site from C - Commercial to MU-U - Mixed Use-Urban, to allow residential land use.

3.3.2 Change of Zoning
The proposed Project includes a Zoning Code Amendment (RZ) to change the existing zoning of the project site from CR-SP Commercial Retail and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones to MU-U-SP – Mixed Use-Urban and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones.

3.3.3 Specific Plan Amendment
The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to revise the Mission Grove Specific Plan. The proposed revisions to the Mission Grove Specific Plan include:

• The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to revise the Mission Grove Specific Plan. The proposed revisions to the Mission Grove Specific Plan include:
• Updating Table 2 – Amendment Descriptions to include the case number and description of the amendment.
• Updating Table 4 – Land Use (Updated to Reflect all Amendments) to include Mixed- Use – Urban for 9.92 acres, with density of 40 dwelling units per acre, and number of units of 396.80 and reducing the Non-Residential, Retail Business & Office to 59.84 acres.
• Revising various text throughout the Specific Plan for consistency with the revisions above.
• Revise Section III Development Standards, to include Mixed-Use • Revise Figure 12 – Specific Plan Proposed Zoning to include MU-U at the Project site • Revise Section IV Appendix 2 – Development Standards Matrix to include the Land Use Designate of Mixed Use – Urban and to add standards for Open Space, Parking Reduction, and Fence and Walls.

3.3.4 Tentative Parcel Map
The proposed Project includes Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 38598 (Figure 3.0 -6 – Tentative Parcel Map) to subdivide the existing Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 26320 into two parcels for financing and conveyance purposes. Proposed Parcel 1 (Project site) would total 9.92 acres, similar shape and size as APN 276-110-018 with only minor realignment of parcel line in the southwest corner.

The remainder parcel, currently developed with the Mission Grove shopping center, will be approximately 9.35 acres and will be similar to the combined APNs 276- 110-012, -014, -015, - 016, and -017 in shape and size with only minor realignment of parcel line in the southeast corner.

As TPM 38598 creates legal parcels for financing purposes, the TPM itself would not have a significant effect on the environment and is not discussed in detail in this EIR.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 3
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Project Description

3.0-15

3.3.5 Design Review
Site Plan
The proposed P roject includes a total of 347 studio, one-, two-, and three -bedroom residential apartment units within five, 4-story buildings. The proposed Project is anticipated to house approximately 829 tenants. Refer to Figure 3.0-8 Conceptual Site Plan The project will include indoor amenities including a leasing office, clubroom, fitness center, and outdoor amenities including a pool and spa, outdoor seating and dining areas, and a dog park.

The habitable gross square footage (SF) of the apartment community is 419,358 SF, the uninhabited square footage (e.g. garages, utility and storage closets) of the project is 55,143 SF in total. The gross square footage of the project is 474,501.

Table 3.0-2: Residential Unit Details
Unit Types Number of Units Percentage of Total Unit
Count
Average Unit Size
(Square Feet)
Studio 24 7% 594
1 Bedroom 133 38% 774
1 Bed + Den 39 11% 888
2 Bedroom 141 41% 1,143
3 Bedroom 10 3% 1,384
Total 347 100% 940 Avg

Table 3.0-3: Building Development Standards
City’s Site Development Standard Proposed
Max Floor Area Ratio 4.0 0.97
Building Height 60 feet 57’-2”
Building Minimum
Setbacks
Front Yard (East fronting Mission Grove Parkway) 0 feet 13’-5” Front Yard (South fronting Mission Village Drive) 0 feet 11’ Side Yard (North, Interior) 0 feet 58’-9”
Side Yard (West, Interior, from carport) 0 feet 2’
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 3 City of Riverside
Project Description Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

3.0-16
Unit Type
Parking
Stalls
Required
Unit Type Count Total Parking
Required Provided
Studio 1 24 24
1 Bedroom 1.5 133 200
1 Bedroom +
Den 2 39 78
2 Bedroom 2 141 282
3 Bedroom 2 10 20
Minimum Parking Total 347 604 604 spaces
Minimum Landscape
Setbacks
Parking Area along Street Frontage (South fronting
Mission Village Drive) 15 feet
11’ minimum to
19’-10”
maximum,
averaging 15’+
Parking and Site Access
The Project includes 604 parking spaces in total. Of these, 513 parking spaces will be dedicated for the Proposed apartment project, and 91 will be shared between the Proposed apartment project and the existing adjacent retail site. The shared parking will be memorialized in a new covenant and restriction agreement between the residential developer entity and Mission Grove Plaza.

Table 3.0-4: Residential Unit Parking Requirements
Chapter 19.580 – Parking and Loading
Unit Types
Parking
Ratio
(spaces per
unit)

Parking Spaces
Required

Required
Parking with
15% Parking
Reduction (1)
Parking
Spaces
Provided

347 units

24 Studios 1.0 24 spaces

24 spaces
133 1-Bedrooms 1.5 200 spaces 200 spaces
39 1-Bed + Den 2.0 78 spaces 78 spaces
141 2-Bedrooms 2.0 282 spaces 282 spaces
10 3-Bedrooms 2.0 20 spaces 20 spaces
Total 604 spaces 513 spaces 604 spaces
A 15% parking reduction request has been outlined for the Project site as noted in the Project’s Specific Plan Amendment, per City of Riverside municipal code 19.580.060.C.2.b.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 3
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Project Description

3.0-17
Table 3.0-5: Parking Type Requirement
Chapter 19.580 – Parking and Loading
Standard Required Provided Percent
Covered Parking
(75 percent of required
parking)

386 spaces
182 garages
75%
204 carports

Open Spaces

127 spaces
58 tandem spaces
25%
160 standards spaces
Total Parking Spaces 513 spaces 604 spaces 100%

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR

MISSION GROVE APARTMENTS
Conceptual Site Plan
Figure 3.0-8
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 3
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Project Description

3.0-19
Architecture
The Project offers a contemporary Spanish architectural style that consists of stucco with score lines, concrete “S” roof tiles, and decorative stone veneer to enhance project entries. This contemporary Spanish architectural style also includes enhanced decorative iron details at roof vents, decorative tiles at project entries, foam trims, sills, and corbels, and trellis at upper balconies. The project leasing and clubhouse incorporates aluminum storefront windows, metal canopies with cable brackets, and decorative stone veneer.

Walls & Fencing
The Project will be secured by utilizing the front facade of the residential buildings along with tubular steel fencing between the buildings along the western, northern, and eastern sides of the site. Along the southern side of the site, adjacent and parallel with Mission Village Drive, a 6-foot tubular steel fence will be installed. Along the southwest corner of the project site, adjacent to the commercial retail site, a 6-foot tubular steel fence will be constructed with planting hedges which will act as a barrier between the residential use and the back -of-house use for the commercial retail. There are no retaining walls proposed on the project site. All of the fences and walls will be designed to enhance the aesthetics of the proposed project, while providing security and privacy.

See Figure 3.0-9, Conceptual Wall and Fence Exhibit.

Lighting
The Project includes a variety of exterior lighting fixtures that have been selected to complement and enhance the contemporary Spanish architecture and the landscape features, as well as to provide functional light to vehicular and pedestrian pathways and wayfinding features. Exterior light fixtures include pole lights along the Project’s main driveways and parking areas, downlights at carports, wall -mounted lights adjacent to garages, sconce lights at building entries, bollard lights along pedestrian pathways, overhead festival lighting and pendent lighting in outdoor amenity areas, and a sign light at the Project’s monument sign.

The private open space required is 50 square feet per unit, for a total of 17,350 square feet or

0.40 acres. The proposed private open space provided is 21,523 square feet.

The Zoning Code requires 150 square feet of common usable open space per unit for projects in the Mixed- Use – Urban Zone, for a total of 52,050 square feet of required open space. The applicant is proposing a Specific Plan Amendment to require 75 square feet of common usable open space per unit for the Mixed- Use – Urban designation, for a total of 26,025 square feet of required usable open space. The common open space that is provided totals 28,611 square feet or 0.66 acres and includes a pool and spa, a dog run area with a dog wash station, fitness center, clubhouse, and shade structure with barbeques and tables.

Landscaping throughout the project site will consist of low water use trees, shrubs, and ground cover. The existing Mexican fan palms located along Mission Grove Parkway South will be protected in place and kept as part of the Project. Large trees are proposed on the periphery of the project site, along roadways (Mission Grove Parkway South and Mission Village Drive), within parking lot planters, and throughout the residential common open space areas and around the apartment structures, Figure 3.0-10, Conceptual Landscape. Trees in the landscape plan include PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 3 City of Riverside
Project Description Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

3.0-20
Magnolia G. ‘Little Gem’ Dwarf Magnolia, Olea ‘Swan Hill’ Fruitless Olive, Laurus X ‘Saratoga’ Hybrid Laurel, Cercis ‘Forest Pansy’ Redbud, and Phoenix Dactylifera ‘Medjool’ Date Palm.

Groundcover, shrubs and accent plants are proposed along walkways and throughout the residential common open space areas. Stormwater will be treated by flowing through modular wetlands throughout the site which are detailed and sized by the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan.

Site Preparation and Grading
Construction of the proposed project is expected to occur over approximately 28 months.

Construction activity would comply with the City’s Municipal Code Section 7.35.020 and would not occur between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays, between the hours of 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM on Saturdays, or at any time on Sundays or federal holidays. Construction activity would consist of demolition, site preparation and grading, building construction, and paving.

Construction activity would begin with demolition of the existing building, site preparation and grading which would utilize equipment such as tractors, dozers, graders, and scrapers. Grading would require a maximum cut and fill of 5 feet under the building, not including remedial grading.

The existing site ranges in elevation from 1,589 feet to 1,599 feet above mean sea level. The proposed improvements range in elevation from 1,591 to 1,650 feet. Proposed grading activities anticipate 5,118 cubic yards of cut and 5,950 cubic yards of fill on site, with a net soil import of 832 cubic yards. Additionally, there is a potential that some additional export of rock/boulders may be required if the rock/boulder material cannot be utilized in the landscaping on site. All construction activities, with the exception of the import of fill and the potential export of rock/boulders, would be on site, including staging of equipment and materials and construction worker parking.

The previously placed fill within the existing Kmart building footprint areas will be over excavated to a depth of three feet below planned finished grades or one foot below footings, whichever is deeper. Fill will be placed and compacted in layers to provide a fill mat on which to construct the proposed residential buildings. There is a potential that grading activities will require heavy ripping, or the use of breakers, if areas of hard bedrock are encountered.

Building construction and paving activities would utilize cranes, welders, rollers, and other paving equipment for construction. Construction is expected to begin in 2025 and take approximately 28 months to complete. The project is anticipated to be fully built and open in 2028.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR

MISSION GROVE APARTMENTS
Conceptual Wall and Fence Exhibit
Figure 3.0-9
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR

MISSION GROVE APARTMENTS
Conceptual Landscape
Plan Figure 3.0-10
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 3
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Project Description

3.0-23
Utilities
The Project will be served by Riverside Public Utilities for electric utility service, by the City of Riverside for sewer service, by Western Municipal Water District for water utility service, and by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for gas utility service. Gas utility service will be provided for use in the common areas, but not to the apartment units. Dry utility (electrical, gas, telecommunications) extensions from existing lines in Mission Village Drive will be cons tructed within the City’s street Right-of-Way (ROW) into the development. The Project will construct new water laterals connecting to the existing WMWD 12” water main in off of Mission Village Drive and Mission Grove Parkway South. The project will utilize the existing sewer line on the southwestern side of the property. Athens, one of the City’s franchise haulers will provide solid waste disposal services for the Project.

Off-site Improvements
The project will install driveway approaches, curb and gutter, and sidewalk along the Mission Grove Parkway South and Mission Village Drive frontage in compliance with applicable City standards. The existing utility poles and boxes located along Mission Grove Parkway South and Mission Village Drive do not need to be relocated. Mission Village Drive is built to its ultimate half- section width as collector (66 -foot right -of-way). Mission Grove Parkway South is built to its ultimate half-section width as an arterial (100 -foot right-of-way). The project will protect in place the existing street trees already along both streets. The existing bus stop on Mission Grove Parkway South will be relocated to the north to allow better utilization and will be built per Riverside Transit Agency standards.

3.4 Project Objectives
The proposed project intends to achieve the following objectives:
• Provide a high -quality residential development in close proximity to many existing amenities and transit corridors.
• Increase the type and amount of housing available consistent with the goals of the City’s Housing Element.
• Maximize the residential potential of the site to assist the City of Riverside in meeting project housing demand as part of the City’s housing needs and growth projections. • Use land resources more efficiently by providing a well-planned, infill redevelopment on a underutilized vacant site.
• Identify mixed-use development standards in the Specific Plan Amendment to create a framework for cohesive integration of uses.
• In furtherance of the City’s Climate Action Plan, replace aging building construction with green building practices and other sustainable development methods. • Create a mixed-use environment encouraging walkability. • Provide for enhanced residential architecture and aesthetically coherent design elements that are compatible and complementary with the existing surrounding residential built environment in terms of colors and materials and landscaping.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 3 City of Riverside
Project Description Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

3.0-24

3.5 Discretionary Actions and Approvals
In conformance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050 and 15367, the City has been designated as the “Lead Agency”, defined as the “public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project,” for the Project’s environmental analysis. The following discretionary actions are required:

City of Riverside – Planning Case PR-2022-001359
• General Plan Amendment (GPA) – to amend approximately 9. 92 acres of the proposed Project area from C Commercial to MU-U Mixed Use-Urban. • Zoning Code Amendment (RZ) – to rezone approximately 9. 92 acres of the proposed Project area from CR-SP- Commercial Retail and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones to MU-U-SO – Mixed Use-Urban and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones; • Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) – to revise the Mission Grove Specific Plan; • Design Review (DR) – for the proposed site design and building elevations; • Environmental Impact Report (EIR) – for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Project; Planning Case County of Riverside • Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) – determination of consistency or inconsistency with applicable airport land use compatibility criteria of the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (MARB/IPA LUCP).

The following public agencies will use this EIR when considering the Project:

California State Water Resources Control Board
The Project is required to obtain coverage under the General Construction Stormwater Permit (Water Quality Order 2009- 0009-DWQ) regulating stormwater runoff from construction sites 1 acre in size or greater.

The project will require the following consultation processes:

Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52
Pursuant to SB 18, consultation with California Native American Tribes on the contact list maintained by the California Native American Heritage Commission is triggered by the proposed General Plan Amendment. Also, pursuant to AB 52, the City is required to notify and consult with local tribes who requested notification from the City for projects subject to CEQA PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 4 .0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Environmental Setting

4.0-1

4.0 Environmental Setting
This section provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the proposed P roject.

Detailed descriptions of the environmental setting for each environmental issue area can be found in Section 5.0, Environmental Impact Analysis.

4.1 Regional Setting
The approximately 9.92-acre Project site is located in Riverside County, in the City of Riverside California. The Project site is within the southwestern quarter of Section 17, Township 3 South, Range 4 West, as shown on the Riverside East, California, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 -minute quadrangle, Figure 3.0- 2 - USGS Topographic Map. The Project site is located in the eastern portion of the City of Riverside, east of Trautwein Road, west of Mission Grove Parkway, south of Alessandro Boulevard, and north of Mission Village Drive, Figure 3.0-3 – Project Site Map. The City of Riverside encompasses approximately 81 square miles and is located approximately 50 miles east of downtown Los Angeles, and 9 miles south of San Bernardino. Currently the City is the 12
th most populous city in California and has the largest employment base in the Inland Empire region. A grid system of east -west and north -south roadways, including arterials, collectors, and local streets provide circulation throughout the City.

The region is characterized by a semi-arid climate with hot and dry summers and relatively mild, wet winter.

4.2 Project Site Setting
The approximately 9.92-acre Project site address is 375 E. Alessandro Boulevard, Riverside, CA 92508. The Assessor’s Parcel Number is 276 -110-018. The project site is part of the Mission Grove Plaza Shopping Center and is currently developed with a former K -Mart retail store that closed in October of 2020. The surrounding areas include the Mission Grove retail shopping center to the east, west, and north, and single- family residences to the south (across Mission Village Drive). Multi- family residences are also located to the north (across Alessandro Boulevard).

The current land use of the project site is a vacant retail site. The General Plan designation for the project site is C - Commercial and it is currently zoned as CR -SP - Commercial Retail and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones. The site is designated as Retail Business & Office within the Mission Grove Specific Plan.

4.3 Developments Considered in Cumulative Impact Analysis In addition to the specific impacts of individual projects, CEQA requires EIRs to consider potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project. CEQA defines “cumulative impacts” as two or more individual impacts that are substantial or will compound other environmental impacts, when considered together. Cumulative impacts are the combined changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed P roject and other nearby projects.

For example, transportation impacts of two nearby projects may be less than significant when PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 4.0 City of Riverside
Environmental Setting Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

4.0-2
analyzed separately, but could have a significant impact when analyzed together. Cumulative impact analysis allows the EIR to provide a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions and gauge the effects of a series of projects more accurately.

As outlined in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 the cumulative impact analysis in an EIR should consider either a list of planned and pending projects that may contribute to cumulative effects or a forecast of future development potential. Currently planned and pending projects in Riverside and surrounding areas are included in Table 4.0-1 and shown on Figure 4.0-1 – Cumulative Project Locations. The cumulative project list was developed in the Focused Traffic Analysis (TA) and created in consultation with the City of Riverside Planning and Public Works staff. The Focused Traffic Analysis is included in Appendix I. The cumulative list included projects anticipated to contribute measurable traffic impacts to the study area. The cumulative project list below includes the cumulative project list for the Focused Traffic Analysis and any additional projects identified during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) review and comment period, or by the City of Riverside Planning Division as a pending project.

Overall the cumulative projects include:
• Total of six (6) developments
• One residential development with 54 residential dwelling units • Three commercial developments
• Two distribution warehouses
• Meridian Specific Plan – West Campus Upper Plateau Project with warehouses for high- cube fulfillment and cold storage, business park office, warehouse, and mixed- use buildings, retail, and park (active and public).

The cumulative projects range in distance from the Project site from the closes t project approximately 800 feet north, across Alessandro Boulevard, to the farthest project site, approximately 1.75 miles east, on Alessandro Boulevard (refer to Figure 4.0 -1 – Cumulative Project Locations). The cumulative list of development projects in Table 4.0-1 and are considered in the cumulative analyses in Section 5.0, Environmental Impact Analysis.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 4
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Environmental Setting

4.0-3
Table 4.0-1: Summary of Cumulative Development Projects Map
ID
Project Name/Case Number &
Location Proposed Land Use Quantity 1
City of Riverside
1 PR-2021-001030 – 18399 Ferrari
Drive, Riverside
Single Family Residential (Tentative
Tract Map 38074) 54 DU
2 PR-2021-001023 – 360 E.

Alessandro Boulevard, Riverside Commercial - Vehicle Wash Facility 3.6 TSF 3 PR-2021-001082 – 1920 Lindbergh
Drive, Riverside
Commercial – Tesla Dealership with
Body Shop 51.6 TSF
4 P-19-0626 – 1220 Alessandro
Boulevard, Riverside
Industrial – Two Distribution
Warehouses 603.1 TSF
5 PR-2022-001254 – 2000 Alessandro
Boulevard, Riverside Commercial – Drive Thru Coffee Shop 0.93 TSF County of Riverside
6 Meridian Specific Plan – West
Campus Upper Plateau Project
Industrial Buildings, Business Park,
Park
Building B Warehouse High-Cube Fulfillment 1250 TSF
Building C Warehouse High-Cube Fulfillment 587 TSF
Warehouse High-Cube Cold Storage 500 TSF
Remaining Industrial Warehouse High-Cube Fulfillment 725.56 TSF Business Park Office 324.12 TSF
Business Park Office 60 TSF
Business Park Warehouse 896.28 TSF
Business Park Mixed-Use 482.77 TSF
Business Park Warehouse 337.94 TSF
Business Park Mixed-Use 160.92 TSF
Active Park 42.20 AC
Public Park 18.08 AC
1 DU = Dwelling Unit; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; AC = Acres

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR

MISSION GROVE APARTMENTS PROJECT
Cumulative Development Location Map
Figure 4.0-1
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.0
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Potentially Significant Environmental Effects

5.0-1

5.0 Potentially Significant Environmental Effects
This section discusses the possible environmental effects of the Project on the specific issue areas identified as having the potential for significant effects. As defined in the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15382) a “significant effect on the environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.

Sections 5.1 through 5.20 of the DEIR examine the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Project and focus on the following issues:
 Aesthetics  Land Use and Planning
 Agriculture/Forestry
Resources
 Mineral Resources
 Air Quality  Noise
 Biological Resources  Population/ Housing
 Cultural Resources  Public Services
 Energy  Recreation
 Geology and Soils  Transportation
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Tribal Cultural Resources
 Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
 Utilities/ Service Systems
 Hydrology/ Water Quality  Wildfire

Appendices/Technical Studies
Technical and supporting studies were prepared in order to provide detailed analysis for the Project and this DEIR . The following studies are identified in the discussion for the individual environmental issues and included as technical appendices of the DEIR:
 Notice of Preparation (NOP) & NOP Comment Letter (Appendix A)  Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Energy Impact Analysis (Appendix B)  Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis (Appendix C)
 Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix D)
 Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation Report & Grading Plan Review and Geotechnical Update (Appendix E)
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.0 City of Riverside
Potentially Significant Environmental Effects Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.0-2
 Phase I ESA & Phase II ESA (Appendix F)
 Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix G)  Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix H)
 Traffic Operations Analysis & Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis (Appendix I)  Sewer Capacity Study (Appendix J)

Analysis Format
The DEIR assesses how the Project would impact the issue areas identified above. Each environmental issue addressed in this DEIR is presented in terms of the following subsections:
 Setting: Provides information describing the existing setting on or surrounding the Project site which may be subject to change and affected as a result of the implementation of the Project and provides a description of the “baseline” conditions from which potential impacts are assessed. This setting describes the physical conditions that existed when the NOP was published and sent to responsible agencies and the State Clearinghouse.  Related Regulations: Provides a discussion of the applicable regulations with respect to each environmental issue.
 Project Design Considerations: Provides a discussion of the Project design features as it relates to each environmental issue. Project design features are those features or elements of the Project that serve to avoid or minimize potential environmental impacts.  Thresholds of Significance: Provides criteria for determining the significance of Project impacts for each environmental issue.
 Environmental Impacts: Provides a discussion of the characteristics of the Project that may have an effect on the environment; analyzes the nature and extent to which the Project is expected to change the existing environment, and whether or not the Project impacts are less than or exceed the levels of significance thresholds , with or without mitigation.
 Proposed Mitigation Measures: Identifies mitigation measures to reduce significant adverse impacts to the extent feasible. Identifies if mitigation measures reduce the Project’s impacts to less than significant levels or if after mitigation measures are implemented the Project’s impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.  Cumulative Environmental Effects: Describes potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur with the Project together with all other reasonably foreseeable, planned, and approved future projects.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.1
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Aesthetics

5.1-1

5.1 Aesthetics
This section evaluates the P roject’s potential impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character or quality of public views, and light or glare.

Aesthetics refers to what is perceived as being visually pleasing or beautiful. Because “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” this aspect of environmental impact analysis is an inherently subjective issue. It is not the purpose of this section of the DEIR to try to determine if the existing vacant site is more aesthetically pleasing than the proposed Project. Rather, this analysis will address definable thresholds of significance related to City policy, designated scenic resources, and known landmarks, to determine if the Project will cause significant negative aesthetic effects.

Negative aesthetic effects relate to obstruction of scenic vistas or views, creation of a negative aesthetic effect, and creation of light or glare. An i mportant criterion for visual impacts is visual consistency. Project design should be consistent or complimentary with natural surroundings and adjacent land uses. Additionally, it is more practical and effective to prevent offensive visual contrasts through a combination of building siting, setbacks, height restrictions, color and texture of building materials, and landscaping. This evaluation measures the existing visual resources at the site and in the surrounding area against the Project, analyzing the nature of the anticipated change considering that the Project site is currently developed.

5.1.1 Setting
Regional Visual Setting
Although the majority of the City is urbanized, the hills and ridgelines that surround the City provide scenic vistas to residents where they can experience long distance views of natural terrain. Vista points can be found throughout the City, both as viewed from urban areas toward the hills and from wilderness areas toward the City. The most notable scenic vistas in the City include the La Sierra/Norco Hills, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park, and Box Springs Mountain Regional Park. The peaks of the Box Springs Mountain, as well as Mt. Rubidoux, Arlington Mountain, Alessandro Heights and the La Sierra/Norco Hills provide scenic views of the City and the region. Per the Riverside General Plan 2025 EIR (GP 2025 EIR) , the higher elevation hills shape the visual outline of the City and drainage areas of the City provide a visual backdrop as viewed from streets, buildings, and open spaces. (GP 2025 EIR, p. 5.1-2) No officially designated State scenic highways or eligible State scenic highways traverse the City (GP 2025 EIR, p. 5.1 -4). However, there are several scenic and special boulevards within the City. The nearest designated Scenic Boulevards to the Project site include Alessandro Boulevard (approximately 450 ft to the north) and Trautwein Road (approximately 1,200 feet to the west) .

Neither Mission Village Drive nor Mission Grove Parkway South in the vicinity of the proposed Project location have scenic designations. (GP 2025 EIR, Figure 5.1- 1). The Project site is generally visible from Alessandro Boulevard, however, some views of the Project site will be blocked by existing trees and landscaping along Alessandro Boulevard, as well as existing buildings in the Mission Grove Shopping Center closest to Alessandro Boulevard (i.e. , McDonald’s, Bank of America, IHOP, Starbucks, 76 gas station/convenient store). The project PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.1 City of Riverside
Aesthetics Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.1-2
site is not generally visible from Trautwein Road, as it is blocked by existing trees and landscaping along Trautwein Road, and the existing buildings in the Mission Grove Shopping Center closest to Trautwein Road (i.e., Cactus Cantina, Galaxy Theatres Mission Grove, and Café Le Reve, and existing residential south of Mission Village Drive.

Visual Character of the Project Site
The project site is a 9.92- acre parcel and is part of the 70 -acre Mission Grove Plaza Shopping Center ( refer to Figures 3.0-6A, 3.0-6B, and 3.0- 6C in Section 3.0 Project Description ). The project site is currently developed with a 104,231 -square-foot vacant retail building (a former K - Mart retail store) that was constructed in 1991 and an associated surface parking lot. The former K-Mart retail store closed in 2020. The building is located on the southern portion of the Project site and abuts the neighboring commercial building to the west while the northern portion of the site is occupied by an asphalt surfaced parking lot. A Bank of America ATM and a coin-operated water dispensary are located to the northwest of the property. Narrow planters with small trees and shrubs are located throughout the parking lot and along the north side of the building walkway.

Asphalt paved driveway/access is located on the east and south sides of the building.

Visibility of the Project Site
The Project site is visible by motorists and pedestrians walking alongside and driving Mission Village Drive and Mission Grove Parkway South, and is partially visible from Alessandro Boulevard. The backside of the existing vacant building is also visible to the residential neighborhood located to the south, across from Mission Village Drive.

Visual Character of the Surrounding Area
The Project site is bordered on the north, west, and east (across Mission Grove Parkway South) by the Mission Grove Plaza Shopping Center, which has a General Plan Land Use Designation of C - Commercial and is zoned CR- SP - Commercial Retail and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones and is developed with retail uses. Multi-family residences are located further north (across Alessandro Boulevard), which have a General Plan Land Use Designation of HDR – High- Density Residential and zoned R -3-3000-SP – Multi-Family Residential and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones. The project site is bordered on the south by a single- family residential neighborhood (across Mission Village Drive), which has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) and is zoned R -1-7000-SP – Single- Family Residential and Specific Plan (Mission Grove) Overlay Zones.

North: Businesses within the Mission Grove Shopping Center include a car wash, gas station, restaurant, bank, and a coffee shop with drive-thru.

East: Mission Grove Parkway South. Immediately across Mission Grove Parkway South includes a gas station, an instant oil change business, two restaurants, a liquor store, and grocery store. Single family residential homes are located immediately southeast of the Project site across Mission Grove Parkway South.

South: Mission Village Drive. Immediately across Mission Village Drive are single family residential homes.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.1
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Aesthetics

5.1-3
West: Businesses within the Mission Grove Shopping Center include a hobby store, hair salon, fitness studio, retail, restaurants and a grocery store.

State Scenic Routes Highways
According to Caltrans’ California Scenic Highway System, there are no existing or proposed State Scenic Highways near the proposed Project site. Additionally, there are no State Scenic Highways near the Project site that are eligible for listing.

Scenic Views and Vistas
“Hillsides and ridgelines above Riverside” are identified as scenic benefits for the c ommunity, especially those who are mobilizing through the area. (GP 2025) The nearest Scenic landmarks to the Project site include the top of the hills in Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park (approximately 1 mile north), Box Springs Mountain (approx imately 4 miles to the northeast), and Mount Rubidoux (approximately 6 miles northwest).

Light and Glare
The City is primarily urbanized, with significant existing sources of light and glare, such as streetlights along roadways, parking lots and walkways, and light emitted from residential and non-residential buildings (GP 2025 FPEIR, p. 5.1- 4). There are existing lights within the Project site, within the parking area (light posts), outside the existing retail building at the entrance, and within the building. There are existing streetlights along both sides of Mission Grove Parkway South east of the Project site and along Alessandro Boulevard north of the Project site. There are signal lights at the intersections of Mission Grove Parkway South and the shopping center’s eastern entrance/driveway, Alessandro Boulevard and Mission Grove Parkway South, and at Alessandro Boulevard and the shopping center’s northern entrance/driveway . Existing night lighting in the Project area also comes from headlights on vehicles traveling along these adjacent roadways and within the shopping center. Overall, the level of light and glare in the project vicinity is typical of a commercial area next to commercial and nearby residential uses.

5.1.2 Related Regulations

5.1.2.1 Federal Regulations
No Federal regulations are applicable to the Project with respect to aesthetics.

5.1.2.2 State Regulations
California Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highways Program was established in 1963 to “preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change which would diminish any aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways” (Street and Highway Code §260 et seq.). No S tate-designated or eligible scenic highways exist in or near the Project site, and, therefore, no State regulations apply.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.1 City of Riverside
Aesthetics Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.1-4

5.1.2.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional regulations applicable to this Project.

5.1.2.4 Local Regulations
Riverside General Plan 2025
The GP 2025 guides development in the City through a compilation of community values, ideals, and aspirations pertaining to the natural and manmade environments (City of Riverside Citywide Design Guidelines and Sign Guidelines (CDG)). The following objectives and policies pertaining to aesthetics are drawn from the City’s GP 2025 and are applicable to the proposed Project.

Land Use and Urban Design Element
The GP 2025 Land Use and Urban Design Element describes present and planned land uses and their relationship to Riverside’s goals for development in terms of the City’s character.

Objectives and policies from the general plan applicable to scenic resources and aesthetics relative to development in the City, and applicable to the Project include:

Objective LU-27: Enhance, maintain, and grow Riverside’s inventory of street trees.

Policy LU-27.4: Encourage trees on private property to add to the City’s urban forest.

Objective LU-30: Establish Riverside’s neighborhoods as the fundamental building blocks of the overall community, utilizing Neighborhood and Specific Plans to provide a more detailed design and policy direction for development projects located in particular neighborhoods.

Policy LU -30.2: Ensure that every neighborhood has a unique community image that is incorporated and reflected in all public facilities, streetscapes, signage and entryways proposed for each neighborhood.

Policy LU-30.3: Ensure that the distinct characte r of each of Riverside’s neighborhoods is respected and reflected in all new development, especially infill development.

Mission Grove Specific Plan (SP)
The Mission Grove SP includes development standards, which are separated into six policy categories that form the framework for future project implementation. The categories are Landform Alteration, Parkway and Setback Treatment, Low Density Residential, Medium Low Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, Commercial and Industrial. The proposed Project includes a SPA to add a Mixed- Use category. The standards of the Landform Alteration category do not apply to the proposed Project as it is already developed and has existing storm drain infrastructure that it will tie into. The Parkway and Setback Treatment standards apply to parkways and setbacks primarily along Trautwein Road and Alessandro Boulevard, which have already been constructed and which the Project is not proposing any changes to. The remaining standards do not apply to the proposed Project as they are for lower density residential than the proposed Project and for commercial and industrial development.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.1
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Aesthetics

5.1-5
City of Riverside Municipal Code
TITLE 17 – GRADING
Title 17 of the Riverside Municipal Code governs grading and other earthwork during construction, including fills and embankments. In part, it regulates hillside and arroyo grading in a manner that “minimizes the effects of grading on natural landforms…[and ensures] that significant natural characteristics such as land form…[and] scenic qualities…can be substantially maintained” (Riverside Municipal Code §17.01.010).

TITLE 19 – ZONING CODE
The City of Riverside’s Zoning Code restricts the location, size, density, and design of buildings in the C ity to encourage appropriate land use, conserve and stabilize property values, provide adequate open spaces for light and air, promote the general welfare of the population, and produce healthy, safe, livable, and attractive neighborhoods within the City (City of Riverside Zoning Code Title 19.020.010; 19.100.010). Specifically, the Mixed-Use Zones were established to encourage a mixture of synergistic land uses, revitalize deteriorating commercial areas, provide alternatives to new development of small shopping centers, increase the area available for residential development, and provide appropriate locations for a broad range of live/work activities to occur (Riverside Municipal Code § 19.120.010).

Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Through Ordinance No.7447, the City adopted outdoor lighting regulations to ensure that outdoor lighting is adequate for safety and security while preserving the naturally dark sky through mitigating artificial sky glow and preventing light and glare pollution. The ordinance, located in Chapter 19.556 of the Riverside Municipal Code, includes various light zones in the City and development standards for each zone. The proposed project area is located in a CR commercial zone and therefore is designated as a Lighting Zone 3, as it does not fall into the categories of Lighting zones 0, 1, or 2.

Citywide Design Guidelines and Sign Guidelines
Through Resolution Number 21544, the City of Riverside adopted the Citywide Design Guidelines and Sign Guidelines to manage developing of the physical image of the City’s residential neighborhoods and shopping centers to emphasize “a small -town character within an urban metropolis.” This document offers an overview of what the City considers good design, outlines design objectives in terms of architectural styles relative to context and historic character in the areas where development occurs. It also provides specific guidance on scale and mass, landscaping, fences, privacy protection, common open space, and parking.

5.1.3 Project Design Considerations
Building Component
The proposed Project includes a total of 347 studio, one- , two-, and three -bedroom residential apartment units within five, 4 -story buildings. Refer to Figure 3.0 -7 Conceptual Site Plan. The PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.1 City of Riverside
Aesthetics Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.1-6
project will include indoor amenities including a leasing office, clubroom, fitness center, and outdoor amenities including a pool and spa, outdoor seating and dining areas, and a dog park.

As summarized in Table 3.0- 3: Building Development Standards, the proposed Project would comply with all of the City’s building development standards.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.1
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Aesthetics

5.1-7
Table 3.0-3: Building Development Standards
City’s Site Development Standard Proposed
Max Floor Area Ratio 4.0 0.97
Building Height 60 feet 57’2”
Building Minimum
Setbacks
Front Yard (East fronting Mission Grove
Parkway South) 0 feet 13’-5”
Front Yard (South fronting Mission Village
Drive) 0 feet 11’
Side Yard (North, Interior) 0 feet 58’-9”
Side Yard (West, Interior, from carport) 0 feet 2’
Unit Type Parking Stalls
Required
Unit Type
Count
Total Parking
Required Provided
Studio 1 24 24
1 Bedroom 1.5 133 200
1 Bedroom +
Den 2 39 78
2 Bedroom 2 141 282
3 Bedroom 2 10 20
Minimum Parking Total 347 604 604 spaces
Minimum Landscape
Setbacks
Parking Area along Street Frontage (South
fronting Mission Village Drive) 15 feet
11’ minimum to
19’-10”
maximum,
averaging 15’+

The elevations for Buildings B, C, D and E, which face the Mission Grove Shopping Center to the north, Mission Grove Parkway South to the east, and Mission Village Drive to the south, respectively, are shown in Figures 5.1-3: Building B Elevations, Figures 5.1- 4: Building C Elevations, Figures 5.1-5: Building D Elevations, Figures 5.1-6: Building E Elevations. Building A is interior to the Project site and is generally not visible from public roadways. The maximum height of the buildings is 57 feet 2 inches.

Architecture
The Project offers a contemporary Spanish architectural style that consists of stucco with score lines, concrete “S” roof tiles, and decorative stone veneer to enhance project entries. This contemporary Spanish architectural style also includes enhanced decorative iron details, decorative tiles at building entries, foam trims, sills, , roof overhangs with wood corbels and metal railing at upper balconies. Colors, materials, and other architectural details are shown in Figure

5.1-7: Colors and Materials.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.1 City of Riverside
Aesthetics Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.1-8

Walls & Fencing
The Project will be secured by utilizing the front facade of the residential buildings along with 6- foot tubular steel fencing between the buildings along the western, northern, and southern sides of the Project site. Along the southern side of the site, adjacent and parallel with Mission Village Drive, a 6 -foot tubular steel fence will be installed with entry vehicular gates for the southern entrance/driveway. The northern and southern entrances will have entry vehicular gates with 6- foot tubular steel sliding gates between 7-foot stone clad pilasters. Along the southwest corner of the project site, an 8- foot tubular steel fence will enclose the dog park . There are no retaining walls proposed. All of the fences and walls will be designed to enhance the aesthetics of the proposed project, while providing security and privacy. See Figure 3.0-8, Wall and Fence Exhibit.

5.1-8: Lighting Plan. Exterior light fixtures include pole lights along the Project’s main driveways and parking areas, downlights at carports, wall-mounted lights adjacent to garages, sconce lights at building entries, bollard lights along pedestrian pathways, overhead festival lighting and pendent lighting in outdoor amenity areas, and a sign light at the Project’s monument sign.

Open Space & Landscaping
The project will include a combination of private and common open space in accordance with City of Riverside open space requirements for Mixed Use- Urban zones and the proposed Mission Grove SPA. The private open space required is 50 square feet per unit, for a total of 17,350 square feet or 0.40 acres. The proposed private open space provided is 21,523 square feet or

0.49 acres. The Zoning Code requires 150 square feet of common usable open space per unit for projects in the Mixed- Use – Urban Zone, for a total of 52,050 square feet of required common usable open space. The applicant is proposing a Specific Plan Amendment to require 75 square feet of common usable open space per unit for the Mixed-Use – Urban designation, for a total of 26,025 square feet of required usable open space. The common open space that is provided totals 28,611 square feet or 0.66 acre and includes a pool and spa, a dog park, leasing/mail, fitness center, and clubhouse, see Figure 5.1-9: Pool Courtyard and Figure 5.1-10: Design Vision and Vibe which shows various outdoor style elements that represent the aesthetic design concept of the proposed Project.

Landscaping throughout the project site will consist of low water use trees, shrubs, and ground cover. The existing Mexican fan palms located along Mission Grove Parkway South will be protected in place and kept as part of the Project. Large trees are proposed on the periphery of the project site, along roadways (Mission Grove Parkway South and Mission Village Drive), within parking lot planters, and throughout the residential common open space areas and around the apartment structures, Figure 3.0- 9, Conceptual Landscape Plan. Trees in the landscape plan PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.1
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Aesthetics

5.1-9
include hybrid strawberry tree ( Arbutus X ‘Marina’), king palm multi-trunk ( Archontophoenix cunninghamiana), carrot wood (Cupaniopsis anacordioides), bay laurel (Laurus nobilis ‘column’), Saritoga hybrid laurel (Laurus X ‘Saratoga’), swan hill olive (Olea europaea), Medjool date palm (Phoenix dactylifera ‘Medjool’), Afghan pine ( Pinus eldarica), coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia), southern live oak, ( Quercus virginiana), Drake lacebark elm ( Ulmus parvigolia ‘Drake’), and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta). Groundcover, shrubs and accent plants are proposed along walkways and throughout the residential common open space areas. All proposed shrubs are compliant with Cal Green requirements for water conserving and non- invasive. Stormwater will be treated by flowing through modular wetlands throughout the site which are detailed and sized by the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
0,66,21*529($3$570(176352-(&7
%XLOGLQJ&3HUVSHFWLYH
)LJXUH
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
0,66,21*529($3$570(176352-(&7
%XLOGLQJ%3HUVSHFWLYH
)LJXUH
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
0,66,21*529($3$570(176352-(&7
%XLOGLQJ%(OHYDWLRQV
)LJXUH
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
0,66,21*529($3$570(176352-(&7
%XLOGLQJ&(OHYDWLRQV
)LJXUH
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
0,66,21*529($3$570(176352-(&7
%XLOGLQJ'(OHYDWLRQV
)LJXUH
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
0,66,21*529($3$570(176352-(&7
%XLOGLQJ((OHYDWLRQV
)LJXUH
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
0,66,21*529($3$570(176352-(&7
&RORUVDQG0DWHULDOV
)LJXUH
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
0,66,21*529($3$570(176352-(&7
/LJKWLQJ3ODQ
)LJXUH
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
0,66,21*529($3$570(176352-(&7
3RRO&RXUW\DUG
)LJXUH

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
0,66,21*529($3$570(176
'HVLJQ9LVLRQDQG9LEH
Figure
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.1 City of Riverside
Aesthetics Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.1-20

5.1.4 Thresholds of Significance
The City of Riverside has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City generally utilizes the CEQA significance thresholds in Appendix G (“Environmental Checklist”) of the State CEQA Guidelines. I mpacts related to the Mission Grove Apartments Project may be considered potentially significant if the proposed project would:
 (Threshold A) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;  (Threshold B) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway;  (Threshold C) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings ( public views are those that are experienced from a publicly -accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; or
 (Threshold D) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

5.1.5 Environmental Impacts
Threshold A: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The proposed Project site is not a scenic vista itself. Of the scenic vistas identified in section 5.1.1 Setting above, only Box Springs Mountain is partially visible from proposed Project site. Views of it from the Project site and surrounding area (including the residential neighborhoods to the west and southwest, the Mission Grove Plaza, and public roadways of Trautwein Road, Mission Village Drive, and Mission Grove Parkway) are either partially blocked or completely blocked by existing surrounding development and trees. As views of Box Springs Mountain from the Project site and surrounding area are currently partially or completely blocked, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial change to the view from the Project area of the Box S prings Mountain. As the view of Box Springs Mountain from the site is already partially or completely blocked, from existing structures and mature trees in the Mission Grove Plaza, the proposed taller apartment buildings would only result in a minor incremental obstruction of this view from the Project area.

The proposed Project, therefore, would not result in a substantial change in the view of this scenic vista or result in substantial adverse effects on a scenic vista. Therefore, adverse effects on scenic vistas would be less than significant.

Threshold B: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No officially designated State scenic highways or any eligible State scenic highways traverse the City or its Sphere of Influence. T here are no rock outcroppings or historic building scenic resources located on the proposed Project site. The Project intends to protect in place and keep as part of the Project the existing Mexican fan palm trees located along Mission Grove Parkway.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.1
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Aesthetics

5.1-21
A portion of Mission Grove Parkway North, north of Alessandro Boulevard, is designated as a Scenic and Special Boulevard in the City’s General Plan. However, the proposed project is located approximately 1,800 feet to the south of that designated special boulevard. Mission Grove Parkway South, which is located along the Project’s eastern boundary, is not designated as a Special or Scenic Boulevard.

As there are no State scenic highways or City designated Scenic or Special Boulevards or Parkways in the vicinity of the Project site, there would be no impacts to a State scenic highway or City designated Scenic or Special Boulevards or Parkways. As the Project site does not contain rock outcrop or historic building scenic resources and it will preserve in place the existing Mexican fan palm trees located along Mission Grove Parkway, there would be no impacts to scenic resources.

Threshold C: In non-urbanized areas, would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The proposed Project is located in an urbanized area and is a redevelopment project. While the Project includes both a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation and zoning the Project is not changing the site from a non -urbanized area to an urbanized area, as the existing land use designation and zoning are intended for commercial development. The project is consistent with all applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

The Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines provide pictorial guidance on building treatments, façade articulation, site planning, sign guidelines and other matters in an effort to improve the overall visual quality of new development citywide. The Guidelines prevent large windowless blank walls through requiring building articulation and vegetation screening and establishing appropriate landscape areas along walls. The Guidelines also provide requirements for façade and signage treatments to prevent the use of highly reflective surfaces, large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces, exposed, untreated precision block walls, chain link fencing, barbed wire, and materials requiring high maintenance such as stained wood, shingles, or metal siding. The Design and Sign Guidelines also encourage the use of neutral paint colors, subtle lighting, and courtyard entrances where feasible. The Design and Sign Guidelines limit impacts to aesthetic resources by reducing interruptions of scenic vistas, maintaining and enhancing scenic resources and visual character, and reducing light and glare. The Design and Sign Guidelines will also serve to enhance Riverside’s visual character and avoid negative impacts by promoting and maintaining design continuity in the City’s neighborhoods. As the Guidelines encourage high-quality design, the proposed Project would comply with all City regulations governing scenic quality.

The proposed Project includes a contemporary Spanish architectural style that consists of stucco with score lines, concrete “S” roof tiles, and decorative stone veneer and decorative tiles to enhance project and building entries. The buildings include varying roof heights , articulation of building façades, and exterior building materials (stucco, decorative tile, decorative stone veneer, PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.1 City of Riverside
Aesthetics Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.1-22
etc.) to provide building articulation to help break up the massing and provide detail and interest.

This contemporary Spanish architectural style also includes enhanced decorative iron details at roof vents, decorative tiles at project entries, foam trims, sills, and corbels, and trellises at upper balconies. Landscaping throughout the Project site will consist of low water use trees, shrubs, and ground cover. The existing Mexican fan palms located along Mission Grove Parkway South will be protected in place and kept as part of the Project. Large trees are proposed on the periphery of the project site, along roadways, within parking lot planters, and throughout the residential common open space areas and around the apartment structures. Groundcover, shrubs and accent plants are proposed along walkways and throughout the residential common open space areas. The Project’s design and landscaping comply with the City’s Design Guidelines and Zoning Code and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the area. As outlined above in the analysis for Threshold A, the proposed Project would not result in a significant change in the viewshed from what currently exists in the Project area and the proposed Project’s structures will not have a substantial adverse effect on an existing scenic vista.

Therefore, impacts to the applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality would be less than significant.

Threshold D: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The Project includes a variety of exterior lighting fixtures that have been selected to complement and enhance the contemporary Spanish architecture and the landscape features, as well as to provide functional light to vehicular and pedestrian pathways and wayfinding features. Exterior light fixtures include pole lights along the Project’s main driveways and parking areas, downlights at carports, wall -mounted lights adjacent to garages, sconce lights at building entries, bollard lights along pedestrian pathways, overhead festival lighting and pendent lighting in outdoor amenity areas, and a sign light at the Project’s monument sign. The Project includes 40,00 square feet of solar panel area on the building’s rooftops and carports.

The proposed Project’s exterior lighting from the buildings or from the parking area will meet the City’s Zoning Code requirements for support structure height, intensity, flickering/flashing, placement, shielding, orientation, and style. The proposed project area is located in a CR commercial zone and therefore is designated as a Lighting Zone 3, as it does not fall into the categories of Lighting zones 0, 1, or 2 . The City requires an exterior lighting plan as a condition of approval (City of Riverside Zoning Code, Chapter 19.566). A Photometric Plan was prepared as part of the Project plans and shows no light spillage from the Project outside of the property boundaries. Overall levels of light generated by the new buildings and passing cars would be comparable to typical light levels currently at the Project site and in the surrounding developed areas.

A Solar Glare Hazard Study was prepared for the Project and reviewed by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission staff. As outlined in the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Staff Report, Agenda Item: 3.2, Case Number: ZAP1548MA22, September 14, 2023 (RCALUC 2023), no glare from the solar panels would affect the March Air Reserve Base/Inland Port Airport Air Traffic Control Tower. Some potential for glare was identified within the Air Force PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.1
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Aesthetics

5.1-23
traffic pattern and evaluation of the Air Force traffic patterns indicated that the panels would result in a low potential for temporary after-image (“green” level glare). The anticipated amount of green glare produced annually from the Project is below ALUC’s threshold of 20% of daylight minutes.

And there would be no significant (red glare) glint or glare impacts. Therefore, the Project’s solar panels would not result in a solar glare impacts on MARB/IPA flight operati ons.. The Project will also comply with recommended conditions related to light and glare with minor modifications, to continue to ensure safety, but allow for flexibility in the final design of the Project’s solar panels.

Additionally, in May 2021 the FAA released a new policy which no longer requires the glare and glint studies for green glare.

Therefore, the proposed Project will not result in a substantial new source of light or glare and impacts with regard to daytime or nighttime views in the vicinity of the project site will be less than significant.

5.1.6 Proposed Mitigation Measures
The Project does not exceed any of the aesthetics thresholds of significance and potential Project- related impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no aesthetics -related mitigation measures have been proposed for the Project.

5.1.7 Cumulative Environmental Effects
Cumulative developments in the City and the surrounding area would modify the visual characteristic of the surrounding area through the development of vacant lots or through redevelopment. The planned and pending projects in the Project vicinity, listed in Table 4.0 -1 include about 6 projects including residential, commercial, and distribution warehouse developments, as well as the County of Riverside’s Meridian Specific Plan – West Campus Upper Plateau Project, which includes warehouses for high-cube fulfillment and cold storage, business park office, warehouse, and mixed- use buildings, retail, and park s (active and public). The cumulative projects range in distance from the Project site, from the closest project approximately 800 feet north, across Alessandro Boulevard, to approximately 1 mile southwest of the Project site, approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the site, to the farthest project site, approximately 1.75 miles east, on Alessandro Boulevard (refer to Figure 4.0-1 – Cumulative Project Locations).

Only the closest cumulative project, which is a commercial vehicle wash facility, located approximately 800 feet north, across Alessandro Boulevard, would have the potential to result in cumulative aesthetic impact on a scenic vista or degrade the existing visual character of the Project site as they are close enough to be viewed at the same time by individuals in the Project area. As outlined above, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and therefore, it would not cumulatively contribute to an adverse effect on a scenic vista.

Each of the proposed developments would change the existing visual character of the ar ea in which they are located. Each project located within the City would go through a design review of site design and building elevations and for consistency with the Citywide Design Guidelines and PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.1 City of Riverside
Aesthetics Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.1-24
Sign Guidelines, and the Meridian Specific Plan – West Campus Upper Plateau Project would go through design review with the March Joint Powers Authority for site design and building elevations and consistency with development standards of the March Joint Powers Authority General Plan Land Use Element (March JPA GP).Design review is anticipated to ensure the projects would have architecture and design elements that are aesthetically coherent and compatible and complimentary with the existing surrounding built environment in terms of colors, materials and landscaping, and thus, would not result in adverse aesthetic impacts to the visual character in the City or adjacent unincorporated Riverside County. Furthermore, the lighting elements have no plans to increase lumens nor the elevation of the proposed struct ures to increase and impede visual elements. All projects within the MARB/IPA LUCP Zone C or higher that proposes solar panels would be required to provide a solar glare study, for review and approval by Riverside County ALUC staff. As each project would be required to ensure it would not result in solar glare impacts, they would not be expected to result in cumulative glare impacts.

Thus, cumulatively the Project does not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or resource, substantially degrade the existing visual character of the area, or create a substantial new source of light or glare, when considered with other cumulative projects. Similar to the Project, visual quality impacts associated with other cumulative projects would be addressed on a case-by-case basis in order to determine their consistency with applicable plans and policies.

Potential cumulative aesthetics impacts are less than significant.

5.1.8 References
The following references were used in the preparation of this section of the DEIR:

CDG
City of Riverside, Citywide Design Guidelines and Sign Guidelines, adopted November 2007. https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/zoning-code-and- regulations (Accessed September 2023).

Caltrans
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California State Scenic Highways Riverside County. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and- community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (Accessed September 2023).

5.1-25
March JPA
GP
March Joint Powers Authority (JPA), General Plan, March 7, 2023. (Available at https://marchjpa.com/planning-permits/, accessed January 2024) RCALUC
2023
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Staff Report, Agenda Item:

3.2, Case Number: ZAP1548MA22 – Anton Mission Grove LLC, September 14, 2023. (Available at https://rcaluc.org/meeting- agendas accessed September 2023)
RMC, Title
19 City of Riverside, Code of Ordinances, Title 19 Zoning https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/zoning-code-and-regulations accessed September 2023)

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 2
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Agriculture and Forestry Resources

5.2-1

5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
This analysis focuses on the Project’s potential impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources. The focus of the following discussion is related to the potential impacts to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses, conflicts with Williamson Act contracts or existing zoning for agricultural use and other changes to the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland.

5.2.1 Setting
Agriculture represents a finite and unique resource that is an important part of the City’s history.

The citrus industry was the mainstay of the City’s economy starting in the late nineteenth century and continuing well into the twentieth. The climate and soils were favorable to widespread commercial citrus crops. Historically, agriculture was the largest industry in Riverside County, providing employment for a significant portion of the City’s population. During the late twentieth century, however, there was significant pressure to convert agricultural land to suburban use.

Currently, agriculture faces continuing pressure from urbanization, foreign competition, and rising production and water costs. Numerous citriculture areas were completely converted to urban and suburban uses after the 1970s. The only significant block of agriculture in the City limits in the early twenty-first century is the Arlington Heights Greenbelt, in the south and central portion of the City. Even in this area, many of the citrus groves are being converted to wholesale nurseries. (GP 2025; GP 2025 PEIR)
The region is experiencing rapid loss of farmland, contracted lands, and agriculture in general. In terms of dollar value, agriculture is today the largest industry in Riverside County, providing employment for a significant portion of the County’s population. According to the Riverside County Agricultural Crop and Livestock Report, for every dollar received by farmers in Riverside County, the financial impact to the region is three times that amount. With crop valuations that have hovered around $100,000,000 over the last ten years, it represents a tremendous economic benefit to the County. Currently, agriculture faces continuing pressure from urbanization, foreign competition, and rising production costs. Despite these pressures, those areas, which remain in agricultural production, represent a significant open space and economic resource for the County.

As values of differing crops vary significantly, it is the loss of agricultural land that is the appropriate measure of whether significant environmental impacts related to agriculture are occurring. (GP 2025; GP 2025 PEIR)

5.2.2 Regulatory Setting
Pursuant to CEQA §21060.1, “agricultural land” means Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance and Unique Farmland as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture, as modified for California by the Department of Conservation’s Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program (“FMMP”). For purposes of this analysis, the City also considers “farmland” to be land subject to a Williamson Act contract as well as land designated for agricultural use in the City’s General Plan or Zoning Code.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5. 2 City of Riverside
Agriculture and Forestry Resources Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.2-2

5.2.3 Comments Received in Response to NOP
There were no comments received in response to the NOP related to agriculture or forestry resources.

5.2.4 Project Design Considerations
There are no Project -specific design considerations proposed that relate to a griculture and forestry resources.

5.2.5 Thresholds of Significance
The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City generally utilizes the CEQA significance thresholds in Appendix G (“Environmental Checklist”) of the State CEQA Guidelines. According to the Appendix G significance thresholds, impacts related to the Mission Grove Apartments Project may be considered potentially significant if the Project would:
 (Threshold A) convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use;
 (Threshold B) conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a W illiamson Act contract;
 (Threshold C) conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g));
 (Threshold D) result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use;
 (Threshold E) involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

5.2.6 Environmental Impacts
Threshold A: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (“Farmland”), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? A review of Figure OS -2 – Agricultural Suitability of the GP 2025 reveals that the project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and is not adjacent to or in proximity to any land classified as, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Figure O S-2 was prepared pursuant to the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Figure OS-2 shows PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 2
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Agriculture and Forestry Resources

5.2-3
the project site and adjacent areas as Urban and Built-Up Land. An area designated as Farmland of Local Importance is the closest Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program designation to the project site, located approximately one mile northwest . The project will not convert any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (“Farmland”) or of Local Importance. Therefore, the project will have no impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively to agricultural uses.

Threshold B: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
A review of Figure OS-3 – Williamson Act Preserves of the GP 2025 and Figure 5.2-2 – Williamson Act Preserves of the General Plan 2025 FPEIR reveals that the project site is not located within an area that is affected by a Williamson Act Preserve or under a Williamson Act Contract.

Moreover, the project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not next to land zoned for agricultural use; therefore, the project will have no impact directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

Threshold C: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
Forest land, as defined in the Public Resources Code section 12220(g), is land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. Timberland, as defined in the Public Resources Code section 4526, is land, other than land owned by the federal government, and land designated by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.

The project site does contain riparian vegetation, including scrub woodland, and forest subtypes that are associated with waterways and drainages throughout the City. (GP 2025 PEIR) The project site does not contain timberland, is not zoned for timberland production and is not next to land zoned for timberland. The City has no designated forest land or timberland as defined in Sections 12220[g] and 4526 of the California Public Resources Code . Therefore, the project would have no impact on forest land or timberland.

Threshold D: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The City has no designated forest land. Presently, the project site has the zoning designations of Commercial-Retail (CR) per the City’s current zoning map. There are no active forest land resources or operations in proximity of the project site and the proposed Project would not result in the conversion of any forest land. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on the loss or conversion of forest land.

Threshold E: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5. 2 City of Riverside
Agriculture and Forestry Resources Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.2-4
The Project site is not designated as, or in close proximity to any land classified as Prime Farmland or Unique Farmland, and it does not support agricultural resources or operations. The proposed Project will not result in the conversion of designated farmland to non-agricultural uses.

In addition, there are no agricultural resources or operations, including farmlands immediately adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, no impacts will occur from this project directly, indirectly or cumulatively to conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or to the loss of forest land.

5.2.7 Proposed Mitigation Measures
There were found to be no impacts to agriculture or forestry resources from the proposed Project; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.

5.2.8 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects As there would be no impact to agriculture or forestry resources as a result of the proposed Project, no Mitigation Measures are required.

5.2.9 Cumulative Environmental Effects
As discussed in Chapter 4 Environmental Setting of this DEIR, cumulative development in the City and surrounding cities and county would include residential development, warehouses, commercial, office, mixed-use and public facilities (parks). However, as there are no impacts to agriculture or forestry resources, and therefore there are also no cumulative environmental impacts from Project implementation to agriculture or forestry resources.

5.2.10 References
The following references were used in the preparation of this section of the DEIR:

GP 2025
City of Riverside, Riverside General Plan 2025, November 2007, with subsequent amendments to various elements. (Available at https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/city-plans/general-plan-0 ,
accessed March 15, 2023)
GP 2025 PEIR
City of Riverside, City of Riverside General Plan 2025 Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) (SCH# 2004021108), certified November 2007. (Available at
https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/city-plans/general-plan-0 ,
accessed March 15, 2023)

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 3
Mission Grove Apartments DEIR Air Quality

5.3-1

5.3 Air Quality
This section analyzes the effects of the Project on Air Quality. All thresholds related to air quality will be analyzed below. The analysis in this section is based on data and information in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Impact Analysis Memorandum for the Proposed Mission Grove Apartments Project in Riverside, California, prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA 2023; see Appendix B).

5.3.1 Setting
South Coast Air Basin
The Project site is located in Riverside, Riverside County, California, which is part of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Basin includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties.

Regional Climate and Air Quality
Existing Air Quality
Existing air quality is measured at established SCAQMD air quality monitoring stations. Monitored air quality is evaluated in the context of ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. Both the State of California and the Federal government have established health-based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for seven (7) air pollutants. As detailed in Table 5.3- 1 – Ambient Air Q uality Standards, these pollutants include: ozone (O 3), carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM 10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM 2.5), and lead (Pb).

Additionally, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H 2S), vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety.

Table 5.3-2 summarizes the most common health and environmental effects for each of the air pollutants for which there is a national and/or California AAQS, as well as for toxic air contaminants. Because of the concentration standards that were set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety (by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]), these health effects would not occur unless the standards are exceeded by a large margin or for a prolonged period of time. State AAQS are typically more stringent than federal AAQS. Among the pollutants, O3 and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) are considered pollutants with regional effects, while others have more localized effects.

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) provides SCAQMD and other air districts with the authority to manage transportation activities at indirect sources. Indirect sources of pollution include any facility, building, structure, or installation, or combination thereof, that attracts or generates mobile-source emissions of any pollutant. In addition, area-source emissions that are generated when minor sources collectively emit a substantial amount of pollution are also managed by the PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Air Quality Mission Grove Apartments Project D EIR

5.3-2
local air districts. Examples of this would be the motor vehicles at an intersection, at a mall, and on highways. SCAQMD also regulates stationary sources of pollution throughout its jurisdictional area. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulates direct emissions from motor vehicles.

Table 5.3-1 – Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary5 Secondary6 Method7
O3 8
1 Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 μg/m3) Ultraviolet
Photometry
-- Same as
Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry 8 Hour 0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)

0.070 ppm
(137
μg/m3)
PM10 9
24 Hour 50 μg/m3
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
150 μg/m3
Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation
and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 μg/m3 --
PM2.5 9
24 Hour -- -- 35 μg/m3
Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation
and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation 12.0 μg/m3 15 μg/m3
CO
1 Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3) --
NDIR 8 Hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3) --
8 Hour
(Lake
Tahoe)
6 ppm
(7 mg/m3) -- --
NO2 10
1 Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 μg/m3) Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
100 ppb
(188
μg/m3)
-- Gas Phase
Chemilumin-
escence Annual
Arithmetic
Mean

0.030 ppm
(57 μg/m3)

0.053 ppm
(100
μg/m3)
Same as
Primary
Standard
SO2 11
1 Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
75 ppb
(196
μg/m3)
--
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophoto-
metry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
3 Hour -- -- 0.5 ppm
(1300 μg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 μg/m3)

0.14 ppm
(for certain
areas)11
--
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
--

0.030 ppm
(for certain
areas)11
--
Lead12,13
30 Day
Average 1.5 μg/m3
Atomic Absorption
-- --
High Volume
Sampler and
Atomic
Absorption
Calendar
Quarter --

1.5 μg/m3
(for certain
areas)12 Same as
Primary
Standard Rolling 3-
Month
Average
-- 0.15 μg/m3
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 3
Mission Grove Apartments DEIR Air Quality

5.3-3
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary5 Secondary6 Method7
Visibility
Reducing
Particles14
8 Hour See footnote 14
Beta Attenuation
and Transmittance
through Filter Tape No

National

Standards
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion
Chromatography
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl
Chloride12 24 Hour 0.01 ppm
(25 μg/m3)
Gas
Chromatography
ppm = parts per billion.
µg/m3 = Microgram per Cubic Meter
-- = not applicable
1 California standards for O3, CO (except for 8-hour Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, and PM10, PM2.5 and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded.

CAAQS are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 National standards (other than O3, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national policies. 3 Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4 Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of the CARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. 5 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.
6 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
7 Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the U.S. EPA. 8 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour O3 primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm.
9 On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 µg/m3 to 12.0 µg/m3.

The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 µg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard 15 µg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 µg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over three (3) years.
10 To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 10hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards, the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm. 11 On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated for nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.

Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard, the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Air Quality Mission Grove Apartments Project D EIR

5.3-4
Pollutant Averaging
Time
California Standards1 National Standards2
Concentration3 Method4 Primary5 Secondary6 Method7
12 The CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as “toxic air contaminants” with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. 13 The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved. 14 In 1989, the CARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

Table 5.3-2 – Summary of Health and Environmental Effects of the Criteria Air Pollutants Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects
CO CO is a colorless, odorless gas
produced by the incomplete
combustion of carbon-
containing fuels, such as
gasoline or wood. CO
concentrations tend to be the
highest during the winter
morning, when little to no wind
and surface- based inversions
trap the pol lutant at ground
levels. Because CO is emitted
directly from internal
combustion engines, unlike
ozone, motor vehicles
operating at slow speeds are
the primary source of CO in the
Basin. The highest ambient CO
concentrations are generally
found near conges ted
transportation corridors and
intersections.

Any source that
burns fuel such as
automobiles,
trucks, heavy
construction
equipment,
farming
equipment and
residential
heating.
• Chest pain in patients
with heart disease
• Headache
• Light-headedness
• Reduced mental
alertness
SO2 SO2 is a colorless, extremely
irritating gas or liquid. It enters
the atmosphere as a pollutant
mainly as a result of burning
high sulfur-content fuel oils and
coal and from chemical
processes occurring at
chemical plants and refineries.

When SO 2 oxidizes in the
atmosphere, it forms sulfates
(SO4). Collectively, these
pollutants are referred to as
sulfur oxides (SOX)
Coal or oil burning
power plants and
industries,
refineries, diesel
engines
• Worsening of asthma:
increased symptoms,
increased medication
usage, and emergency
room visits

NOX NOX consist of nitric oxide
(NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2)
and nitrous oxide (N2O) and are
formed when nitrogen (N 2)
combines with oxygen (O 2).

Any source that
burns fuel such as
automobiles,
trucks, heavy
construction
• Lung irritation
• Enhanced allergic
responses

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 3
Mission Grove Apartments DEIR Air Quality

5.3-5
Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects
Their lifespan in the
atmosphere ranges from one to
seven days for nitric oxide and
nitrogen dioxide, to 170 years
for nitrous oxide. NO
X are
typically created during
combustion processes and are
major contributors to smog
formation and acid deposition.

NO2 is a criteria air pollutant
and may re sult in numerous
adverse health effects; it
absorbs blue light, resulting in a
brownish-red cast to the
atmosphere and reduced
visibility. Of the seven types of
nitrogen oxide compounds,
NO2 is the most abundant in the
atmosphere. As ambient
concentrations of NO 2 are
related to traffic density,
commuters in heavy traffic may
be exposed to higher
concentrations of NO 2 than
those indicated by regional
monitoring station.
equipment,
farming
equipment and
residential
heating.

O3 O3 is a highly reactive and
unstable gas that is formed
when VOCs and NO X, both
byproducts of internal
combustion engine exhaust,
undergo slow photochemical
reactions in the presence of
sunlight. Ozone concentrations
are generally highest during the
summer months when direct
sunlight, light wind, and warm
temperature conditions are
favorable to the formation of
this pollutant.

Formed when
reactive organic
gases (ROG)
and NOX
react in the
presence of
sunlight. ROG
sources
include any source
that burns fuels,
(e.g., gasoline,
natural gas, wood,
oil) solvents,
petroleum
processing and
storage and
pesticides.
• Respiratory symptoms
• Worsening of lung
disease leading to
premature death
• Damage to lung tissue
• Crop, forest, and
ecosystem damage
• Damage to a variety of
materials, including
rubber, plastics, fabrics,
paint, and metals

Particulate Matter PM10 (Particulate Matter less
than 10 microns): A maj or air
pollutant consisting of tiny solid
or liquid particles of soot, dust,
smoke, fumes, and aerosols.

Particulate matter pollution is a
major cause of reduce visibility
(haze) which is caused by the
scattering of light and
Sources of PM 10
include road dust,
windblown
dust and
construction. Also
formed from other
pollutants (acid
rain, NO X, SO X,
organics).
• PM10:
o Premature death and
hospitalization,
primarily for
worsening or
respiratory disease
o Reduced visibility and
material soiling

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Air Quality Mission Grove Apartments Project D EIR

5.3-6
Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects
consequently the significant
reduction air clarity. The size of
the particles (10 microns or
smaller, about 0.0004 inches or
less) allows them to easily
enter the lungs where they may
be deposited, resulting in
adverse health effects.

Additionally, it should be noted
that PM 10 is consi dered a
criteria air pollutant.

PM2.5 (Particulate Matter less
than 2.5 microns): A similar air
pollutant to PM
10 consisting of
tiny solid or liquid particles
which are 2.5 microns or
smaller (which is often referred
to as fine particles). These
particles are formed in the
atmosphere from primary
gaseous emissions that include
sulfates formed from SO
2 release from power plants and
industrial facilities and nitrates
that are formed from NO
X
release from power plants,
automobiles and other types of
combustion sources. The
chemical composition of fine
particles highly depends on
location, time of year, and
weather conditions. PM 2.5 is a
criteria air pollutant.

Incomplete
combustion of any
fuel.

PM2.5 comes from
fuel combustion in
motor vehicles,
equipment and
industrial sources,
residential and
agricultural
burning. Also
formed from
reaction of other
pollutants (acid
rain, NO X, SO X,
organics).
• PM2.5:
o Premature death
o Hospitalization for
worsening of
cardiovascular
disease
o Hospitalization for
respiratory disease
o Asthma-related
emergency room
visits
o Increased symptoms,
increased inhaler
usage

Volatile Organic
Compounds
(VOC)
VOCs are hydrocarbon
compounds (any compound
containing various
combinations of hydrogen and
carbon atoms) that exist in the
ambient air. VOCs contribute
to the formation of smog
through atmospheric
photochemical reactions and/or
may be toxic. Compounds of
carbon (also known as organic
compounds) have different
levels of reactivity; that is, they
do not react at the same speed
or do not form ozone to the
same extent when exposed to
photochemical processes.

VOCs often have an odor, and
some examples inclu de
Organic chemicals
are widely used as
ingredients in
household
products. Paints,
varnishes and wax
all contain organic
solvents, as do
many cleaning,
disinfecting,
cosmetic,
degreasing and
hobby products.

Fuels are made up
of organic
chemicals. All of
these products can
release organic
compounds while
• Irritation of eyes, nose,
and throat
• Difficulty breathing
• Nausea
• Can cause central
nervous system damage
• Some VOCs are
cancerous

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 3
Mission Grove Apartments DEIR Air Quality

5.3-7
Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects
gasoline, alcohol, and the
solvents used in paints.

Exceptions to the VOC
designation include carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide,
carbonic acid, metallic carbides
or carbonates, and ammonium
carbonate. VOCs are a criteria
pollutant since they are a
precursor to O 3, which is a
criteria pollutant. The terms
VOC and ROG (see below) are
used interchangeably.
you are using
them, and, to
some degree,
when they are
stored.

ROG Similar to VOC, ROGs are also
precursors in forming ozone
and consist of compounds
containing methane, ethane,
propane, butane, and longer
chain hydrocarbons, which are
typically the result of some type
of combustion/decomposition
process. Smog is formed when
ROG a nd NO
X react in the
presence of sunlight. ROGs are
a criteria pollutant since they
are a precursor to O 3, which is
a criteria pollutant. The terms
ROG and VOC (see previous)
are used interchangeably.

Sources similar to
VOCs.

Health effects similar to
VOCs.

Lead (Pb) Lead is a heavy metal that is
highly persistent in the
environment and is considered
a criteria pollutant. In the past,
the primary source of lead in
the air was emissions from
vehicles burning leaded
gasoline. The major sources of
lead emissio
ns are ore and
metals processing, particularly
lead smelters, and piston-
engine aircraft operating on
leaded aviation gasoline. Other
stationary sources include
waste incinerators, utilities, and
lead-
acid battery
manufacturers. It should be
noted that the Project does not
include operational activities
such as metal processing or
lead acid battery
manufacturing. As such, the
Project is not anticipated to
Metal smelters,
resource recovery,
leaded gasoline,
deterioration of
lead paint.
• Impaired mental
functioning in children
• Learning disabilities in
children
• Brain and kidney
damage
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Air Quality Mission Grove Apartments Project D EIR

5.3-8
Criteria Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects
generate a quantifiable amount
of lead emissions.

Odor Odor means the perception
experienced by a person when
one or more chemical
substances in the air come into
contact with the human
olfactory nerves.

Odors can come
from many
sources including
animals, human
activities, industry,
natures, and
vehicles.
• Irritation of eyes, nose,
and throat, which can
reduce respiratory
volume
• VOCs that can cause
odors can stimulate
sensory nerves to cause
neurochemical changes
and compromise the
immune system
• Unpleasant odors can
trigger memories or
attitudes causing
emotional effects such as
stress

Climate/Meteorology
Air quality in the planning area is affected not only by various emission sources (e.g., mobile and industry) but also by atmospheric conditions (e.g., wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and rainfall). The regional climate within the Basin is considered semi -arid and is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. The air quality within the Basin is primarily influenced by a wide range of emission sources – such as dense population centers, heavy vehicular traffic, and industry – and meteorology.

The annual average temperature varies little throughout the Basin, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit ( °F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station closest to the Project site is the Riverside Fire Station 3 (Western Regional Climate Center 2022). The monthly average maximum temperature recorded at this station ranged from 66.8°F in January to 94.4°F in August, with an annual average maximum of 79.5°F.

The monthly average minimum temperature recorded at this station ranged from 39.1°F in January to 59.6°F in August, with an annual average minimum of 48.6°F. January is typically the coldest month, and July and August are typically the warmest months in this area of the Basin.

Regional Air Quality
Air pollution contributes to a wide variety of adverse health effects. The EPA has established national AAQS for six of the most common air pollutants: CO, lead (Pb), O 3, PM, NO2, and SO2,
which are known as criteria pollutants. The SCAQMD monitors levels of various criteria pollutants at 37 permanent monitoring stations and five (5) single-pollutant source Pb air monitoring sites PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 3
Mission Grove Apartments DEIR Air Quality

5.3-9
throughout the air distric t. On February 21, 2019, CARB posted the 2018 amendments to the State and national area designations.

CARB has divided the State into 15 air basins based on meteorological and topographical factors of air pollution. Data collected at these stations are used by CARB and the EPA to classify air basins as Attainment, Nonattainment, Nonattainment-Transitional, or Unclassified, based on air quality data for the most recent three (3) calendar years compared with the AAQS.

Attainment areas may be the following:
• Attainment/Unclassified: (‘Unclassifiable’ in some lists) These basins have never violated the air quality standard of interest or do not have enough monitoring data to establish Attainment or Nonattainment status.
• Attainment-Maintenance: (national ambient air quality standards [NAAQS] only) These basins violated a NAAQS that is currently in use (were Nonattainment) in or after 1990, but now attain the standard and are officially redesignated as Attainment by the EPA with a Maintenance State Implementation Plan.
• Attainment: (usually only for California ambient ai r quality standards [CAAQS] , but sometimes for NAAQS). These basins have adequate monitoring data to show attainment, have never been Nonattainment, or, for NAAQS, have completed the official Maintenance period.

Nonattainment areas are imposed with additional restrictions as required by the EPA. The air quality data is also used to monitor progress in attaining air quality standards. Table 5.3-3 lists the attainment status of criteria pollutants in the Basin.

Table 5.3-3 – Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Federal
O3 Nonattainment (1-hour)
Nonattainment (8-hour)
Extreme Nonattainment (1-hour)
Extreme Nonattainment (8-hour)
PM10 Nonattainment (24-hour)
Nonattainment (Annual) Attainment-Maintenance (24-hour) PM2.5 Nonattainment (Annual) Serious Nonattainment (24-hour) Moderate Nonattainment (Annual)
CO Attainment (1-hour)
Attainment (8-hour)
Attainment-Maintenance (1-hour)
Attainment-Maintenance (8-hour)
NO2 Attainment (1-hour)
Attainment (Annual)
Attainment/Unclassified (1-hour)
Attainment-Maintenance (Annual)
SO2 Attainment (1-hour)
Attainment (24-hour)
Attainment/Unclassified (1-hour)
Attainment/Unclassified (Annual)
Pb1 Attainment (30-day average) Attainment (3-month rolling) All Others Attainment/Unclassified N/A
Source: SCAQMD
1Only the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin is in nonattainment for lead.

N/A = not applicable

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Air Quality Mission Grove Apartments Project D EIR

5.3-10
Local Air Quality
SCAQMD, together with CARB, maintains ambient air quality monitoring stations. The air quality monitoring station that monitors air pollutant data closest to the site is the Rubidoux Monitoring Station at 5888 Mission Boulevard, in Riverside, approximately eight (8) miles northwest of the Project site. The air quality trends from this station are used to represent the ambient air quality in the Project area. The ambient air quality data in Table 5.3-4 shows that NO 2 and CO levels are
below the applicable state and federal standards. However, PM10 and O3 levels frequently exceed their respective standards and PM2.5 levels occasionally exceed the federal 24-hour standard.

Table 5.3-4 – Air Quality Concentrations in the Project Vicinity Pollutant Standard 2019 2020 2021
CO (Measured at the Riverside – Rubidoux Monitoring Station) Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 1.5 1.8 2.1
No. of days exceeded State: 20 ppm 0 0 0
Federal: 35 ppm 0 0 0
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 1.2 1.5 1.8
No. of days exceeded State: 9 ppm 0 0 0
Federal: 9 ppm 0 0 0
O3 (Measured at the Riverside – Rubidoux Monitoring Station) Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.123 0.143 0.117
No. of days exceeded State: 0.09 ppm 24 46 ND
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.096 0.115 0.097
No. of days exceeded State: 0.07 ppm 63 86 ND
Federal: 0.07 ppm 59 82 ND
PM10 (Measured at the Riverside – Rubidoux Monitoring Station) Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 57.6 61.9 76.0
No. of days exceeded State: 50 µg/m3 110 115 0
Federal: 150 µg/m3 0 0 0
Annual avg. concentration (µg/m3) 40.9 ND 33.2
Exceeds Standard? State: 20 µg/m3 Yes ND Yes
PM2.5 (Measured at the Riverside – Rubidoux Monitoring Station) Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 57.7 59.9 44.4
No. of days exceeded Federal: 35 µg/m3 5 12 0
Annual avg. concentration (µg/m3) 11.2 14.1 13.3
Exceeds Standard? State: 12 µg/m3 No Yes No
Federal: 12 µg/m3 No Yes No
NO2 (Measured at the Riverside – Rubidoux Monitoring Station) Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppb): 56.0 62.0 52
No. of days exceeded State: 180 ppb 0 0 0
Federal: 100 ppb 0 0 0
Annual avg. concentration (ppg): 14.0 14.0 14.3
Exceeds standard? State: 30 ppb No No No
Federal: 53 ppb No No No
Sources: Air Data: EPA (2022b) and CARB
Notes: Data was collected from the closest stations to the Project site where each criteria pollutant data was available.
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter O 3 = ozone
CARB = California Air Resources Board PM 2.5 = particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in size CO = carbon monoxide PM 10 = particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in size EPA = U.S Environmental Protection Agency ppb = parts per billion PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 3
Mission Grove Apartments DEIR Air Quality

5.3-11
ND = No data available ppm = parts per million
NO2 = nitrogen dioxide
Air Quality Standards
The EPA has set primary NAAQS for O3 CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb. Primary standards are those levels of air quality deemed necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health. In addition, California has established health-based ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for these and other pollutants, some of which are more stringent than F ederal standards. Table 5.3-5 lists the current Federal and State standards for regulated pollutants.

Table 5.3-5 – Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Primary
Standards California Standard
Ozone 1-Hour -- 0.09 ppm
8-Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
1-Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm
1-Hour 0.100 ppm 0.18 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual -- --
24-Hour -- 0.04 ppm
1-Hour 0.075 ppm 0.25 ppm
PM10
Annual -- 20 µg/m3
24-Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3
PM2.5
Annual 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
24-Hour 35 µg/m3 --
Lead 30-Day Average -- 1.5 µg/m3
3-Month Average 0.15 µg/m3 --
ppm = parts per million
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: CARB 2016a

Toxic Air Contaminants
The California Health and Safety Code defines a toxic air contaminant (TAC) as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel -fueled engines. According to CARB, diesel engine emissions are believed to be responsible for about 70 percent of California’s estimated known cancer risk attributable to TACs and they make up about eight (8) percent of outdoor PM

2.5. Sensitive Receptors
Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly, individuals with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes and others who engage in frequent exercise. Structures that house these persons or places where they gather to exercise are defined as “sensitive receptors”. These structures typically include residences, PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Air Quality Mission Grove Apartments Project D EIR

5.3-12
hotels, hospitals, etc. as they are also known to be locations where an individual can remain for 24 hours. Schools are also considered to be sensitive receptors. Consistent with the L ocalized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology, the nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are single-family residential units that are at least 115 feet south of the Project site boundary, across Mission Village Drive.

5.3.2 Related Regulations

5.3.2.1 Federal Regulations
The EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the NA AQS for O3, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and Pb. The EPA has jurisdiction over emissions sources that are under the authority of the Federal government including aircraft, locomotives, and emissions sources outside state waters (Outer Continental Shelf). The EPA also establishes emission standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission requirements of the CARB.

Federal Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was first enacted in 1955 and has been amended numerous times in subsequent years (1963, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes the Federal air quality standards, the NAAQS, and specifies future dates for achieving compliance.

The CAA also mandates that states submit and implement State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for local areas not meeting these standards. These plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met.

The 1990 amendments to the CAA that identify specific emission reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS require a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and incorporate additional sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones. The sections of the CAA most directly applicable to the development of the Project site include Title I (Nonattainment Provisions) and Title II (Mobile Source Provisions) . Title I provisions were established with the goal of attaining the NAAQS for the following criteria pollutants O 3, NO2, SO2,
PM10, CO, PM 2.5, and Pb. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to include an additional standard for O3 and to adopt a NAAQS for PM2.5. Table 5.3-2 (above) provides the NAAQS within the Basin.

Mobile source emissions are regulated in accordance with Title II provisions. These provisions require the use of cleaner burning gasoline and other cleaner burning fuels such as methanol and natural gas. Automobile manufacturers are also required to reduce tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons and NO
X. NOX is a collective term that includes all forms of nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2, NO3) which are emitted as byproducts of the combustion process.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards
The Federal CAA requires the EPA to establish primary and secondary NAAQS for a number of criteria air pollutants. The air pollutants for which standards have been established are considered PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 3
Mission Grove Apartments DEIR Air Quality

5.3-13
the most prevalent air pollutants known to be hazardous to human health. NAAQS have been established for O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb.

5.3.2.2 State Regulations
California Air Resources Board
In 1967, the State Legislature passed the Mulford- Carrell Act, which combined two Department of Health bureaus (i.e., the Bureau of Air Sanitation and the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board) to establish CARB. Since its formation, CARB has worked with the public, the business sector, and local governments to find solutions to the State’s air pollution problems. California adopted the CCAA in 1988. CARB administers the CAAQS for the 10 air pollutants designated in the CCAA. These 10 State air pollutants are the 6 criteria pollutants designated by the federal CAA as well as 4 others: visibility-reducing particulates, H2S, sulfates, and vinyl chloride.

California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA ), signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the S tate to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. CARB is the S tate air pollution control agency and is a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California, and for implementing the requirements of the CCAA. CARB overseas local district compliance with Federal and California laws, approves local air quality plans, submits the state implementation plans to the EPA, monitors air quality, determines and updates area designations and maps, and sets emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer products, small utility engines, off-road vehicles, and fuels.

California Ambient Air Quality Standards
The CCAA requires CARB to establish CAAQS. Similar to the NAAQS, CAAQS have been established for ozone, CO, NO
2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, Pb, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and visibility -reducing particulates. In most cases, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS. The California CAA requires all local air districts to endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies that local air districts should focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area -wide emission sources and provides districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources.

Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Standards California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods.

Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The 2022 version of Title 24 was adopted by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and became effective on PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Air Quality Mission Grove Apartments Project D EIR

5.3-14
January 1, 2023. It should be noted that the analysis herein assumes compliance with the 2022 Title 24 Standards. The 2022 Standards update energy efficiency standards for newly constructed buildings, as well as additions and alterations to existing buildings.

CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on January 1, 2011, and is administered by the California Building Standards Commission.

CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent ly approved update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards that became effective January 1, 2023. Local jurisdictions are permitted to adopt more stringent requirements, as State law provides methods for local enhancements. CALGreen recognizes that many jurisdictions have developed existing construction and demolition ordinances and defers to them as the ruling guidance provided, they establish a minimum 65 percent diversion requirement. The code also provides exemptions for areas not served by construction and demolition recycling infrastructure. The State Building Code provides the minimum standard that buildings must meet in order to be certified for occupancy, which is generally enforced by the local building official. 2022 CALGreen standards are applicable to the Project and require:
• Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction. For multifamily development projects with 20 or more dwelling units, hotels and motels with 20 or more sleeping units or guest rooms (4.106.4.2.2):
o Ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces on a building site, provided for all types of parking facilities, shall be EV charging spaces capable of supporting future Level 2 electric vehicle charging station (EVSE). o 25 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles. For multifamily parking facilities, no more than one receptacle is required per dwelling unit when more than one parking space is provided for use by a single dwelling unit.
o Five (5) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 EVSE. Where common use parking is provided, at least one EV charger shall be located in the common use parking area and shall be available for use by all residents or guests.
• Construction waste management: Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with either (CalGreen) Section 4.408.2, 4.408.3, or 4.408.4, or meet a more stringent local construction and demolition waste management ordinance (4.408.1) PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 3
Mission Grove Apartments DEIR Air Quality

5.3-15

• Recycling by occupants: Where five (5) or more multifamily dwelling units are constructed on a building site, provide easily accessible area(s) that serve(s) all building on the site and are identified for the depositing, storage, and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling, including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, organic waste, and metals, or meet a lawfully enacted local recycling ordinance, if more restrictive (4.410.2).
• Water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings. Plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) and fittings (faucets and showerheads) shall comply with the following:
o Water Closets. The effective flush volume of all water closets shall not exceed 1.28 gallons per flush (4.303.1.1)
o Urinals. The effective flush volume of wall-mounted urinals shall not exceed 0.125 gallons per flush The effective flush volume of all other urinals shall not exceed 0.5 gallons per flush (4.303.1.2)
o Showerheads. Single showerheads shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute and 80 psi (4.303.1.3). When a shower is served by more than one showerhead, the combined flow rate of all showerheads and/or other shower outlets controlled by a single valve shall not exceed 1.8 gallons per minute at 80 psi (4.303.1.3.2).
o Faucets. The maximum flow rate of residential lavatory faucets shall not exceed

1.2 gallons per minute at 60 psi. The minimum flow rate of residential lavatory faucets shall not be less than 0.8 gallons per minute at 20 psi (4.303.1.4.1). The maximum flow rate of lavatory faucets installed in common and public use areas (outside of dwellings or sleeping units) in residential buildings shall not exceed 0.5 gallons per minute at 60 psi.

Assembly Bill 1493
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (Pavley), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost -effective reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, USEPA granted the waiver of CAA preemption to California for its GHG standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Pavley I took effect for model years starting in 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, which is now referred to as “LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG” will cover 2017 to 2025. Fleet average emission standards would reach 22 percent reduction from 2009 levels by 2012 and 30 percent by 2016. The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of th e LEV, Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), and Clean Fuels Outlet programs and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016 levels.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Air Quality Mission Grove Apartments Project D EIR

5.3-16

5.3.2.3 Regional Regulations
Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a regional planning agency that serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, economics, community development, and environmental issues. SCAG is not an air quality management agency, but it is responsible for development transportation, land use, and energy conservation measures that impact air quality. SCAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide provide growth forecasts used by SCAQMD to develop air quality and land use strategies. SCAG is charged with developing and implementing Senate Bill 375, a measure that addresses greenhouse gas reduction in the State, with participation from Riverside County and the other cities and counties that make up SCAG. The USEPA has designated SCAG as the Metropolitan Planning Organization responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the CAA for the Basin.

South Coast Air Quality Management District
The SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Basin. To that end, the SCAQMD, a regional agency, works directly with SCAG, county transportation commissions, and local governments, and cooperates actively with State and Federal government agencies. The SCAQMD develops air quality-related rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements, inspects emissions sources, and provides regulatory enforcement through such measures as educational programs or fines, when necessary.

SCAQMD Rule 402
SCAQMD Rule 402 regarding nuisances states:

A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.

Air Quality Management Planning
SCAQMD and SCAG are responsible for formulating and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Basin. The main purpose of the AQMP is to bring the area into compliance with Federal and State air quality standards. SCAQMD prepares a new AQMP every three (3) years, updating the previous plan and a 20-year horizon.

The 2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from previous AQMPs. It also includes a variety of additional strategies such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g., zero emissions technologies, when cost -effective and feasible, and low NO x
technologies in other applications), best management practices, co -benefits from existing programs (e.g., climate and energy efficiency), incentives, and other CAA measures to achieve the 2015 8-hour ozone standard.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 3
Mission Grove Apartments DEIR Air Quality

5.3-17
SCAQMD adopts rules and regulations to implement portions of the AQMP. Several of these rules may apply to project construction or operation. For example, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires the implementation of the best -available fugitive dust control measure during active construction periods capable of generating fugitive dust emissions from on- site earth -moving activities, construction/demolition activities, and construction equipment travel on paved and unpaved roads.

Although SCAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate the air quality issues associated with new development projects within the Basin, such as the proposed Project. Instead, SCAQMD published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) to assist lead agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties in evaluating potential air quality impacts of projects proposed in the Basin. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook provides standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses in Environmental Impact Reports and was used extensively in the preparation of this analysis. SCAQMD is currently in the process of replacing the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) with the Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook.

To assist in conducting an air quality analysis in the interim while the replacement Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook is being prepared, supplemental guidance/information is provided in the SCAQMD website and includes (1) on -road vehicle emission factors, (2) background CO concentrations, (3) localized significance thresholds (LST), (4) mitigation measures and control efficiencies, (5) mobile- source toxics analysis, (6) off -road mobile-source emission factors, (7) PM

2.5 significance thresholds and calculation methodology, and (8) updated SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. SCAQMD additionally recommends using approved models to calculate emissions from land use projects, such as the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod).

These recommendations were followed in the preparation of the Project’s air quality analysis.

The following SCAQMD rules and regulations would apply to the Project:
• SCAQMD Rule 403 requires projects to incorporate fugitive dust control measures. • SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits the volatile organic compound content of architectural coatings.

5.3.2.4 Local Regulations
City of Riverside General Plan 2025
The City of Riverside General Plan 2025 (GP 2025) was adopted in November 2007 to preserve the vision and values of Riverside looking ahead to future improvements, increasing industry, and population growth. The Air Quality Element of the implemented policies intended to limit air pollution and reduce the potential sensitive receptor exposure. The following policies from the Air Quality Element of the GP 2025 are applicable to the Project:

Objective AQ-1: Adopt land use policies that site polluting facilities away from sensitive receptors and vice versa; improve job-housing balance; reduce vehicle miles traveled and length of work trips; and improve the flow of traffic.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Air Quality Mission Grove Apartments Project D EIR

5.3-18
Policy AQ-1.2: Consider potential environmental justice issues in reviewing impacts (including cumulative impacts for each project proposed).

Policy AQ-1.3: Separate, buffer and protect sensitive receptors from significant sources of pollution to the greatest extent possible.

Policy AQ-1.4: Facilitate communication between residents and businesses on nuisance issues related to air quality.

Policy AQ-1.5: Encourage infill development projects within urbanized areas that include job centers and transportation nodes.

Policy AQ-1.6: Provide mixed-use development that allows the integration of retail, office, institutional and residential uses for the purpose of reducing costs of infrastructure construction and maximizing the use of land.

Policy AQ-1.7: Support appropriate planned residential developments and infill housing, which reduce vehicle trips.

Policy AQ-1.12: Support mixed-use land use patterns but avoid placing residential and other sensitive receptors in close proximity to businesses that emit toxic air contaminants to the greatest extent possible. Encourage community centers that promote community self-sufficiency and containment and discourage automobile dependency.

Policy AQ-1.16: Design safe and efficient vehicular access to commercial land uses from arterial streets to ensure efficient vehicular ingress and egress.

Policy AQ-1.17: Avoid locating multiple-family developments close to commercial areas that emit harmful contaminants.

Objective AQ-2: Reduce air pollution by reducing emissions from mobile sources.

Policy AQ-2.4: Monitor and strive to achieve performance goals and/or VMT reduction which are consistent with SCAG’s goals.

Objective AQ-3: Prevent and reduce pollution from stationary sources, including point sources (such as power plants and refinery boilers) and area sources (including small emission sources such as residential water heaters and architectural coatings).

Policy AQ-3.4: Require projects to mitigate, to the extent feasible, anticipated emissions which exceed AQMP Guidelines.

Policy AQ -3.6: Support “green” building codes that require air conditioning/filtration installation, upgrades or improvements for all buildings, but particularly for those associated with sensitive receptors.

Policy AQ-3.7: Require use of pollution control measures for stationary and area sources through the use of best available control activities, fuel/material substitution, cleaner fuel alternatives, product reformulation, and change in work practices and of control measures identified in the latest AQMP.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 3
Mission Grove Apartments DEIR Air Quality

5.3-19
Objective AQ-4: Reduce particulate matter, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency, as either airborne photochemical precipitates or windborne dust.

Policy AQ-4.5: Require the suspension of all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.

Objective AQ-5: Increase energy efficiency and conservation in an effort to reduce air pollution.

Policy AQ-5.1: Utilize source reduction, recycling, and other appropriate measures to reduce the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills.

Policy AQ-5.3: Continue and expand use of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, water, landfill gas, and geothermal sources.

Policy AQ-5.8: Require residential building construction to meet or exceed energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.

Objective AQ -7: Support a regional approach to improving air quality through multi - jurisdictional cooperation.

Policy AQ-7.9: Adhere with Federal, State and regional air quality laws, specifically with Government Code Section 65850.2, which requires that each owner or authorized agent of a project indicate, on the development or building permit for the project, whether he/she will need to comply with the requirements for a permit for construction or modification from the SCAQMD.

Policy AQ-7.10: Incorporate, to the extent applicable and permitted by law, current and proposed AQMP measures.

5.3.3 Project Design Considerations
The Project would adhere to applicable 2019 2022 CALGreen building code standards as described in Section 5.3.2.2 above as they relate to reducing potential impacts to air quality.

5.3.4 Thresholds of Significance
The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City generally utilizes the CEQA significance thresholds in Appendix G (“Environmental Checklist”) of the State CEQA Guidelines. According to the Appendix G significance thresholds, impacts related to the Mission Grove Apartments Project may be considered potentially significant if the Project would:
 (Threshold A) conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;  (Threshold B) result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;
 (Threshold C) expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Air Quality Mission Grove Apartments Project D EIR

5.3-20
 (Threshold D) result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

5.3.5 Environmental Impacts
Threshold A: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
As discussed in Section 5.3.2.3 above, the SCAQMD published the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook to assist lead agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties in evaluating potential air quality impacts of projects proposed in the Basin. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook provides standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses in EIRs, including criteria for determining a Project’s consistency with an AQMP, which are found in Chapter 12 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. While the Handbook is currently under revision, Chapter 12 is not among the chapters, appendices, or tables that the SCAQMD has recommended to avoid using. The SCAQMD states that methodologies within the Handbook can still be used as long as documentation is provided regarding the source and applicability to a project. Thus, t he Project’s consistency with the 2022 AQMP was determined using the project consistency criteria defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook. These indicators are discussed below. Additionally, the SCAQMD air quality significance thresholds reflect the most recent thresholds, which were updated in March 2023.

Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the i nterim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

The violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to are the CAAQS and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded.

Regional Construction Emissions
Construction activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NO x, SOx, CO,
PM10, and PM 2.5. Construction-related emissions are expected from the following construction activities: demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving.

The construction analysis includes estimating the construction equipment that would be used during each construction activity, the hours of use for that construction equipment, the quantities of earth and debris to be moved, and the on- road vehicle trips (e.g., worker, soil -hauling, and vendor trips). The proposed earthwork for the Project includes 5,118 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 5,950 cy of fill. It was assumed that the cut would be reused as fill, leaving 832 cy of fill import required. CalEEMod defaults are assumed for the construction activities, off-road equipment, and on-road construction fleet mix and trip lengths. It is expected that construction would start in 2025 and take approximately 28 months, with an opening in 2028.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 3
Mission Grove Apartments DEIR Air Quality

5.3-21
The most recent version of CalEEMod (Version 2022.1.0) was used to develop the construction equipment inventory and calculate the construction emissions. Table 5.3-6 lists the estimated construction equipment that would be used during P roject construction as estimated by CalEEMod default values. The CalEEMod output is included as Attachment C to the Project’s Air Quality Analysis.

Table 5.3-6 – Diesel Construction Equipment Used by Construction Phase Construction
Phase
Off-Road Equipment
Type
Off-Road
Equipment
Unit
Amount
Hours
Used
per Day
Horsepower Load
Factor
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 33 0.73
Excavators 3 8 36 0.38
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 367 0.4
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 84 0.37
Grading
Excavators 1 8 36 0.38
Graders 1 8 148 0.41
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37
Building
Construction
Cranes 1 7 367 0.29
Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2
Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7 84 0.37
Welders 1 8 46 0.45
Architectural
Coating Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48
Paving
Pavers 2 8 81 0.42
Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38
Source: Compiled by LSA using CalEEMod defaults (August 2023) Fugitive Dust
Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with land clearing and exposure of soils to the air and wind, as well as cut-and-fill grading operations. Dust generated during construction varies substantially on a project -by-project basis, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions at the time of construction. The construction calculations prepared for this Project assumed that dust control measures (watering a minimum of two times daily consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403) would be employed to reduce emissions of fugitive dust during site grading. Furthermore, all construction would need to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding the em ission of fugitive dust. Table 5.3 -7 – Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions lists total construction emissions (i.e., fugitive dust emissions and construction equipment exhausts) that have incorporated the following Rule 403 measures that would be implemented to significantly reduce PM10 emissions from construction:
• Water active sites at least twice daily (locations where grading is to occur shall be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving).

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Air Quality Mission Grove Apartments Project D EIR

5.3-22
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 2 feet (0.6 meter) of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114. • Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less.

These Rule 403 measures were incorporated in the CalEEMod analysis. The emissions rates in shown in Table 5.3-7 are from the CalEEMod output tables listed as “Mitigated Construction,” though the only measures that have been applied to the analysis are the required construction emissions control measures, or standard conditions. The emissions are also the combination of the on- and off-site emissions and the greater of summer and winter emissions. No exceedances of any criteria pollutants are expected. Standard measures are documented in the CalEEMod output in Attachment C of the Project’s Air Quality Analysis.

Architectural Coatings
Architectural coatings contain VOCs that are part of the O3 precursors. Based on the Project, it is estimated that application of the architectural coatings for the proposed peak construction day would result in a peak of 11 pounds per day (lbs/day) of VOCs. Therefore, VOC emissions from architectural-coating application would not exceed the SCAQMD VOC construction threshold of 75 lbs/day.

Table 5.3-7 – Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions Construction
Phase
Total Regional Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
VOCs NOx CO SOx Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Demolition 1 28 20 <1 4 1 1 1
Site
Preparation 1 40 30 <1 8 1 4 1
Grading 1 24 19 <1 3 1 1 1
Building
Construction 2 21 34 <1 4 1 1 1
Architectural
Coating 9 1 4 <1 1 <1 <1 <1
Paving 1 13 12 <1 <1 1 <1 1
Peak Daily 11 40 38 <1 10 5
SCAQMD
Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds
Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: Compliled by LSA (August 2023)
lbs/day = pounds per day
PM10 and PM2.5 fugitive emissions are from the CalEEMod output tables “Mitigated” results; the only “mitigation” measures applied in this modeling are required dust control measures per SCAQMD Rule 403. It was assumed the architectural coatings would be applied during the building construction phase.

Localized Construction Emissions
The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS. Collectively, these are PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 3
Mission Grove Apartments DEIR Air Quality

5.3-23
referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard at the nearest residence or sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its air quality impact analyses.

Table 5.3 -8 – Construction Localized Impacts Analysis shows the portion of the construction emissions that would be produced on the Project site in comparison to the LSTs. As shown in Table 5.3-8, localized construction emissions would not exceed LSTs and therefore would not result in a locally significant air quality impact.

Table 5.3-8 – Construction Localized Impacts Analysis
Emissions
Sources
Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site Emissions 40 28 9 5
LST 249 1,556 20 7
Exceeds
Threshold? No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA (August 2023)
Note: SRA-23 – Metropolitan Riverside County, 4-acre construction area, 115 feet from nearest sensitive receptors.

SRA = Sensitive Receptor Area

The Project’s regional and localized construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance and LST thresholds.

Operational Emissions
Long-term air pollutant emission impacts are those associated with mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., electricity and natural gas) and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment) related to the Project.

PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. Entrainment of PM 10 occurs when vehicle tires pulverize small rocks and pavement, and the vehicle brakes generate airborne dust.

The contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other PM emission processes.

Gasoline-powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with diesel- powered vehicles. Based on the project Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis (LSA 2023) prepared for the Project, the proposed P roject would generate a total of 1,464 vehicle trips on a peak day (weekday), which was accounted for in the CalEEMod analysis.

Energy source emissions result from activities in buildings that use electricity and natural gas.

The quantity of emissions is the product of usage intensity (i.e., the amount of electricity or natural gas) and the emission factor of the fuel source. Major sources of energy demand include building mechanical systems, such as heating and air conditioning, lighting, and plug-in electronics, such as computers. Greater building or appliance efficiency reduces the amount of energy for a given activity and thus lowers the resultant emissions. The emission factor is determined by the fuel source, with cleaner energy sources, like renewable energy, producing fewer emissions than PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Air Quality Mission Grove Apartments Project D EIR

5.3-24
conventional sources. The Project would include the required solar panels with the capacity to generate approximately 1,275,500 kWh per year.

Typically, area source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions at the Project site, including architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment. Area source emissions associated with the P roject would include emissions from the use of landscaping equipment and the use of consumer products.

Emission estimates for operation of the Project were calculated using CalEEMod and are shown in Table 5.3-9 – Project Operational Emissions, below. The peak daily emissions associated with Project operations are identified in Table 5.3-9 for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5.

Table 5.3-9 – Project Operational Emissions (lbs/day)
VOCs NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 9 <1 20 <1 <1 <1
Energy Source Emissions <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile Source Emissions 6 5 46 <1 10 3
Total Project Emissions 15 6 66 <1 10 3
SCAQMD Significance
Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA (August 2023)
lbs/day = pounds per day
Note: CalEEMod only allows including the photovoltaic system (solar panels) as mitigation, even though the project is required to include solar. Thus, the results reported in this table are from the “mitigated” results from CalEEMod.

These results account for the Project using energy from its solar panels.

The results shown in Table 5.3-9 indicate the Project would not exceed the significance criteria for any pollutant emissions; therefore, operation of the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State AAQS.

As the Project’s regional and localized construction-source emissions and localized operational- source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance or LST thresholds, the Project is determined to be consistent with Criterion 1.

Consistency with Criterion 2: The project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of project build-out phase.

The 2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from previous AQMPs . As with the previous 2016 AQMP , the 2022 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under Federal law.

Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. The future growth projections are based on demographic growth forecasts for various socioeconomic categories, such as population, housing, and employment by industry. The demographic growth forecasts were developed by SCAG for their 2020 RTP/SCS and were also used in the 2022 AQMP. As the growth projections in the AQMP reflect the SCAG PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 3
Mission Grove Apartments DEIR Air Quality

5.3-25
growth projections from local general plans in the region, development consistent with the growth projections in City of Riverside General Plan are considered to be consistent with the AQMP.

The City of Riverside General Plan designates the Project site as Commercial. The Commercial designation provides for retail, sales, service, and office uses that serve multiple neighborhoods within the City. The Project consists of multifamily residential dwelling units. The Project’s residential land use and development is not consistent with the land use designation stated in the General Plan. As such, the Project would include a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the land use designation from Commercial to Mixed-Use-Urban, which would allow the Project to be developed in an existing retail environment . This would help create a framework for an integration of uses with features such as pedestrian connectivity, walkability, and shared elements including parking.

While the Project would require a GPA for not being consistent with the site’s original land use designation, because the Project construction and operational regional and localized emissions would not exceed the thresholds of significance, the Project would not cause an exceedance of an air quality violation. It should also be noted that the residential use proposed by the Project will generate less traffic and consequently fewer emissions than if the Project site were developed consistent with the commercial land use designation (retail, sales, service, and office uses), which would generate more trips and consequently more emissions than the Project. Rather, as noted, the Project would promote pedestrian connectivity and walkability, which would aid in reducing vehicle trip emissions in the area. Therefore, the Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build-out phase and is determined to be consistent with Criterion 2.

Conclusion
The Project would not result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations. Although the Project would not be consistent with the current General Plan land use designation the Project would seek a GPA for land use designation consistency, and construction and operational-source emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional and localized thresholds. As such, the Project is therefore considered to be consistent with the AQMP and any potential impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold B: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The Basin is designated as nonattainment for O
3 and PM 2.5 for Federal standards and
nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards. The SCAQMD’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Air Quality Mission Grove Apartments Project D EIR

5.3-26
cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.

As discussed under Threshold A , regarding construction emissions, the Project’s Air Quality Analysis determined that the Project’s daily regional construction emissions and localized emissions would not exceed the established thresholds of any criteria pollutant emissions thresholds established by SCAQMD. Additionally, regarding operational emissions, the Project’s Air Quality Analysis determined that the Project would not exceed the significance criteria for any pollutant emissions. Therefore, as the Project would not exceed any of the applicable significance thresholds or significance criteria, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criterial pollutant for which the Project region is in nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State AAQS. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold C : Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
SCAQMD published its Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology in June 2003 and updated it in July 2008, recommending that all air quality analyses include an assessment of both construction and operational impacts on the air quality of nearby sensitive receptors. L STs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project’s Source Receptor Area (SRA) and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The Project site is in the Metropolitan Riverside County area, or SRA 23, and the nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site are single-family residential units that are at least 115 feet to the south of the Project site boundary, across Mission Village Drive.

The SCAQMD provides LST screening tables for 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500-meter source-receptor distances. As noted, the nearest sensitive receptors are located approximately 115 feet (35 meters) from the Project site boundary. The Project site is 9.92 acres; however, the construction activities would only take place on portions of the Project site on any one (1) day. The SCAQMD recommends assuming that four (4) acres would be disturbed in any 1 day; therefore, LSTs for the 4 acre/35- meter combination were derived by interpolation in the Project’s Air Quality Analysis. Table 5. 3-10 – SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds shows the emissions thresholds that would apply to the Project based on project size and distance to the nearby receptors during Project construction and operation.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 3
Mission Grove Apartments DEIR Air Quality

5.3-27
Table 5.3-10 – SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds Emissions Source Category Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Construction (4 acres, 115 feet distance) 249 1,556 20 7 Operations (4 acres, 115 feet distance) 249 1,556 5 2
Source: SCAQMD (2008)
Note: The local Source Receptor Area (SRA) is 23 – Metropolitan Riverside County ac = acre
ft = foot
lbs/day = pounds per day
As previously shown in Table 5.3-8 – Construction Localized Impacts Analysis, the Project would not exceed these applicable emissions thresholds based on project size and distance to the nearest sensitive receptors during construction and operation.

Health Risk Assessments (HRAs) include an evaluation of diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with a stationary source (combustion source for manufacturing) or mobile sources (such as heavy truck traffic associated with warehous ing). Mobile HRAs are typically conducted to evaluate long-term exposure (e.g. 9 or 30 years) to DPM emissions associated with a project’s long-term diesel truck travel (i.e. those traveling to and from warehouses) on nearby sensitive receptors (residences, schools, etc.). Heavy -duty off -road construction equipment (graders, excavators, dozers, scrapers, loaders, etc.) typically have diesel engines and emit DPM emissions. However, construction activity is typically short -term (1 -2 years or less), as is anticipated for the proposed Mission Grove Apartments project, and does not constitute long-term exposure, typically used to generate risk estimates. As outlined above, construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds established to protect public health and air quality.

Therefore, the health risk associated with construction emissions would be less than significant for the surrounding sensitive uses.

Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; potential impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold D : Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Heavy-duty equipment in the project area during construction would emit odors, primarily from the equipment exhaust. However, construction- produced odors would cease after individual construction is completed. No other sources of objectionable odors have been identified for the proposed Project.

SCAQMD addresses odor criteria within the CEQA Handbook. The SCAQMD has not established a rule or standard regarding odor emissions; rather, the district has a nuisance rule: “Any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors should be deemed to have a significant impact.” Land uses and industrial operations that are associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food- processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed Project would not fall under any of these categories.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Air Quality Mission Grove Apartments Project D EIR

5.3-28
City regulations require trash storage areas to be in an enclosed area to limit air circulation from them and through adherence to City regulations, odors from trash storage areas would be minimal. The proposed Project’s trash enclosures are planned with the following features:
• All trash/recycling enclosures will be located within vestibules in the residential buildings (there will not be any trash enclosures in exterior areas of the property); • There will be one set of trash and recycling chutes per building (5 sets of trash/recycling chutes total for the property); and
• Each set of trash chutes will have ventilation to move the indoor air up to the roof.

With these measures, no sources of objectionable odors have been identified or are expected for the proposed Project. The Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

Standard Regulatory Requirements/Best Available Control Measures Although no Project-specific air quality mitigation measures were found to be required and were therefore not proposed, Standard Regulatory Requirements/Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) that are applicable to the Project include the following SCAQMD Rules : Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) , Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings), and Rule 445 (Prohibits Wood Burning) .

Although these are already required, they are included herein for inclusion in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and tracking of compliance.

BACM AQ-1: The contractor shall adhere to applicable measures contained in Table 1 of Rule 403 including, but not limited to:
• All clearing, grading, earth -moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions. • The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are limited to 15 miles per hour or less.

BACM AQ-2: The following measures shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113:

Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter of VOC) consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113 shall be used.

BACM AQ-3: The Project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 445, which prohibits the use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces in new development.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 3
Mission Grove Apartments DEIR Air Quality

5.3-29

5.3.6 Cumulative Environmental Effects
As discussed in Chapter 4 Environmental Setting of this DEIR , cumulative development in the City and surrounding cities and county would include residential development, warehouses, commercial, office, mixed-use and public facilities (parks). The Project area is designated as a non‐attainment area for ozone and PM2.5, and PM10.

The SCAQMD recommends that project-specific air quality impacts be used to determine whether a project’s emissions are cumulatively considerable. As discussed in Section 5.3.5, the Project- specific evaluation of emissions demonstrates that Project construction -source air pollutant emissions and Project operational-source emissions would not result in exceedances of criteria pollutant regional thresholds established by SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant. Accordingly, the Project would also not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment, and impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Thus, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

5.3.7 References
The following references were used in the preparation of this section of the DEIR:

Air Quality,
GHG, Energy
Analysis
2023
LSA Associates, Inc. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Impact Analysis Memorandum for the Proposed Mission Grove Apartments Project in Riverside, California. August 2023. (Appendix B) SCAQMD
2022
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. Adopted December 2022.

VMT
Analysis
2023
LSA Associates, Inc. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis. April 2023. (Appendix I)

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.4
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Biological Resources

5.4-1

5.4 Biological Resources
This section analyz es potential impacts of the Project on sensitive biological resources. The analysis in this section is based on data and information in the April 2023 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis and Biology Report (LSA 2023), which is contained in Appendix C.

5.4.1 Setting
The Project site is located at the site of a former K-Mart retail store that closed in October 2020.

The site is bound by Mission Grove Parkway on the east, Mission Village Drive on the south, and the Mission Grove Plaza shopping center on the west and north. The Project site is part of the Mission Grove Plaza Shopping Center, which is a paved commercial center with some ornamental trees and shrubs within the associated parking lot and around the perimeter of the shopping center.

A review of the Riverside Conservation Authority ’s (RCA) interactive geographical information systems (GIS) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSCHP ) Information Map indicates that the Project site is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Cell, Cell G roup, or within any MSHCP species survey areas.

Existing Biological Resource Setting
Local Topography and Climate
The existing grades range from approximately elevation 1,588 feet above mean sea level (msl) to the west to 1,598 feet above msl to the east (per the Geotechnical Investigation Report, contained in Appendix E). The shopping center is located within a relatively flat, paved commercial lot and is not located on any slopes or hills.

Riverside County features a somewhat cooler version of a Mediterranean climate, or semi -arid climate, with warm, sunny, dry summers and cool, rainy, mild winters. Relative to other areas in Southern California, winters are colder with frost and with chilly to cold mornings. The annual precipitation averages 12.0 inches per year with the wettest month being February and the driest months being June and July. The average maximum and minimum temperatures are 93- and 40- degrees Fahrenheit (° F) with August being the hottest month and December being the coldest.

Vegetation
Vegetation and land cover on the site primarily consist of developed land and ornamental vegetation. Developed land cover is mostly devoid of vegetation as it is either paved or contains areas with manmade structures. Ornamental areas within the project site are predominantly comprised of non-native trees such as eucalyptus ( Eucalyptus sp. ), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta ), kurrajong ( Brachychiton populneus ), and others. The understory is comprised of bare ground and non- native noxious weedy species including common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) and Bermuda grass ( Cynodon dactylon). Special-status plans are not expected to occur due to the high level of development.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.4 City of Riverside
Biological Resources Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.4-2
General Wildlife
Common bird species observed within the Project site included rock pigeon ( Columba livia), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans ), and American crow ( Corvus brachyrhynchos ), which are both fairly urbanized species often observed in similar developed areas. As the site is fully developed, contains an existing structure, and is located within an existing shopping center, the site does not provide much in the way of habitat that would attract other wildlife species.

Special-Status Species and Natural Communities
Special-status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( CDFW) under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals designated as Species of Special Concern (SSC), Fully Protected (FP), and/or Watch List (WL); those species on the Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List and/or the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants; those plants contained on the CNPS California Rare Plant Rank (RPR). Only listed species and RPR Lists 1 and 2 are considered special -status species in this EIR, per the RPR code definitions:
• List 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California
• List 1B.1 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously endangered in California (over 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)
• List 1B.2 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; fairly endangered in California (20-80 percent occurrences threatened)
• List 1B.3 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere, not very endangered in California (<20 percent of occurrences threatened, or no current threats known) • List 2 = Rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere • List 3 = Plants needing more information (most are species that are taxonomically unresolved; some species on this list meet the definitions of rarity under CNPS and CESA) • List 4.1 = Plants of limited distribution (watch list), seriously endangered in California • List 4.2 = Plants of limited distribution (watch list), fairly endangered in California (20- 80 percent occurrences threatened)
• List 4.3= Plants of limited distribution (watch list), not very endangered in California The RPR also includes Lists 3 and 4. Per the CDFW, these plants typically do not warrant consideration under State CEQA Guidelines unless the specific circumstances relevant to local distributions make them of potential scientific interest. Similarly, local agencies may also consider PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.4
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Biological Resources

5.4-3
and list additional plants to be of “local concern” or “narrow endemic” because of local or regional scarcity, as determined by that agency (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380).

CDFW’s QuickView Tool in its Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5, and the CNPS Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California were queried for reported locations of special- status plant and wildlife species as well as special -status natural plant communities in the Riverside East USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle.

Neither query of the QuickView Tool in BIOS or the CNDDB Rarefind 5 reported occurrences of special-status plant or wildlife species within the Project site or within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Similarly, the query of the CNPS Electronic Inventory did not report known occurrences of rare or endangered native vascular plants within or around the Project site.

Critical Habitat
Under the Federal Endangered Species Act, “Critical Habitat” is designated at the time of listing of a species or within one year of listing. Critical Habitat refers to specific areas within the geographical range of a species at the time it is listed that include the physical or biological features that are essential to the survival and eventual recovery of that species. Maintenance of these physical and biological features requires special management considerations or protection, regardless of whether individuals or the species are present or not. All Federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS regarding activities they authorize, fund, or permit which may affect a Federally listed species or its designated Critical Habitat.

The Project site is not located within Federally designated Critical Habitat. The closest areas of Critical Habitat designation are located approximately 7 miles northwest of the site for Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae) and least Bell’s vireo ( Vireo bellii pusillus ); approximately 9.8 miles southwest of the site for coastal California gnatcatcher ( Polioptila californica californica); and approximately 10 miles southeast of the site for spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis).

Special-status Plant Species
One special-status plant community was listed in the CNDDB as occurring within the Riverside East USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangle: Southern Alder Riparian Woodland. However , this special- status plant community was not observed within the boundaries of the Project site.

According to the CNDDB and CNPS, 15 special-status plant species have been recorded in the Riverside East quadrangle. As previously mentioned in the Vegetation Section above, the Project site primarily consists of non- native ornamental vegetation within concrete planters within the associated parking lot as well as around the perimeter of the shopping center. As the site is paved and developed and dominated by non-native ornamental species, this has essentially eliminated the ability of the Project site to provide suitable habitat for special-status plant species.

Based on habitat requirements for specific special -status plant species and the availability and quality of habitats needed by each species, it has been determined that the Project site does not PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.4 City of Riverside
Biological Resources Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.4-4
provide suitable habitat for any of the special-status plant species known to occur in the area and are presumed to be absent from the Project site.

Special-status Wildlife
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is considered a California Species of Special Concern (SSC) when nesting and has been reported within 1 mile of the site. Given the level of development in the surrounding area of the site and the level of development on the site itself, this species is not expected to occur. Furthermore, loggerhead shrike is covered and adequately conserved under the MSHCP. No other special-status species has been reported from the project site, and none was observed during the site visit. Given the habitat quality, none of these species has more than a low potential of being present.

Jurisdictional Features
There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The U.S Army Corps of Engineers ( Corps) Regulatory Branch regulates discharge of dredge and/or fill materials into “waters of the United States” (WoUS) pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

Of the State agencies, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) r egulates discharges into surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the CDFW regulates alterations to streambed and associated plant communities pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.

There are no records of wetlands or potential jurisdictional drainage features existing within the Project site, and no potentially jurisdictional drainage features, wetlands, or riparian areas were observed on the Project site during the February 2023 survey.

Wildlife Movement Corridors
Wildlife movement includes seasonal migration along corridors and daily movements for foraging.

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

The project site does not contain any essential connectivity areas, natural landscape blocks, natural areas small or potential riparian connections, as documented in the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project report.

The project site is entirely developed and bordered by existing paved roads and development on all four adjoining properties that restrict wildlife movement in the project vicinity. The majority of wildlife movement within the project site is anticipated to be limited to wildlife present on site or within the ornamental vegetation present within project site.

5.4.2 Related Regulations

5.4.2.1 Federal Regulations
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.4
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Biological Resources

5.4-5
The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 was originally enacted between the United States and Great Britain (acting on behalf of Canada) for the protection of migratory birds between the two countries. The MBTA has since been expanded to include Mexico, Japan, and Russia. Under MBTA provisions, it is unlawful “by any means or manner to purse, hunt, take, capture (or) kill” any migratory birds as defined by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act except as permitted by regulations issued by the USFWS. The term “take” is defined by the USFWS regulation to mean to “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect” any migratory bird or any part, nest, or egg of any migratory bird covered by the conventions, or to attempt those activities.

5.4.2.2 State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), Chapter 1.5, Sections 2050-2116 (CESA) prohibits the take of any plant or animal listed or proposed for listed as rare (plants only), threatened, or endangered. In accordance with CESA, CDFW has jurisdiction over state-listed species (Fish and Game Code 2070). The CDFW regulates activities that may result in take of individuals (i.e., hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, purse, catch, capture, or kill). Habitat degradation or modification is not expressly included in the definition of take under CESA in the CFGC.

Nonetheless, CDFW has interpreted “take” to include the destruction of nesting, denning, or foraging habitat necessary to maintain a viable breeding population of protected species.

California Fish and Game Code
The CDFW derives its authority from the CFGC. CESA (CFGC Section 2050 et. seq.) prohibits take of state-listed threatened or endangered species. Take of fully protected species is prohibited under CFGC Section 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515. Section 86 of CFGC defines “take” as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, purse, capture, or kill. This definition does not include indirect harm by way of habitat modification.

CFGC Section 3503, 3503.5, and 3511 restrict the take, possession, and destruction of birds, nests, and eggs. Section 3503.5 of the CFGC protects all birds-of-prey and their eggs and nests against take, possession, or destruction. Fully protected birds may not be taken or possessed except under specific permit (Section 3511).

SSC is a category CDFW uses for those species considered to be indicators of regional habitat changes or considered to be potential future protected species. SSC species do not have any special legal status except that which may be afforded by the CFGC, as noted above. CDFW intends the SSC category as a management tool to include these species into special consideration when decisions are made concerning the development of natural lands.

The CDFW also has authority to administer the Native Plant Protection Act (CFGC Section 1900 et seq.). The Native Plant Protection Act requires the CDFW to establish criteria for determi ning if a species, subspecies, or variety of native plant is endangered or rare. Under Section 1913(c) of the Native Plant Protection Act, the owner of land where a rare or endangered native plant grows is required to notify the department at least 10 days in advance of changing the land use to allow for salvage of plant(s).

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.4 City of Riverside
Biological Resources Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.4-6
Perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams and associated riparian vegetation, when present, also fall under the jurisdiction of the CDFW. Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC (Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements) gives CDFW regulatory authority over work in the bed, bank, and channel (which could extend to the 100-year flood plain), consisting of, but not limited to, the diversion or obstruction of the natural flow or changes in the channel, bed, or bank of any river, stream or lake.

5.4.2.3 Regional Regulations
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi- jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan ( HCP) focusing on the conservation of species and their associated habitats in western Riverside County. The overall goal of the MSHCP is to maintain biological and ecological diversity within a rapidly urbanizing region; it allows Riverside County and its cities to better control local land use decisions and maintain a strong economic climate in the region while addressing the requirements of the state and federal ESAs.

The MSHCP serves as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA, as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) under the state NCCP Act of 2001. The MSHCP encompasses all unincorporated Riverside County land west of the crest of the San Jacinto Mountains to the Orange County line, as well as the jurisdictional areas of the cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Norco, Corona, Riverside, Moreno Valley, Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Perris, Hemet, San Jacinto, Menifee, Wildomar, Eastvale, and Jurupa Valley.

Rather than address sensitive species of an individual basis, the MSHCP provides for the collective conservation of the 146 covered species and their habitats. The MSHCP allows participating jurisdictions to authorize “take,” as defined under FESA, of plant and wildlife species identified within the MSHCP area. Under the MSHCP, the Wildlife Agencies (USFWS and CDFW) have granted “take authorization” for otherwise lawful actions, such as public and private development that may incidentally take or harm individual species or their habitat outside of the MSHCP conservation area, in exchange for the assembly and management of a coordination MSHCP conservation area, and as such, project applicants need not seek their own permits on a case-by-case basis from the USFWS and/or the CDFW.

The MSHCP is a “criteria-based plan” and does not rely on a hardline preserve map. Instead, within the MSHCP Plan Area, the MSHCP reserve will be assembled over time from a smaller subset of the Plan Area referred to as the Criteria Area. The Criteria Area consists of Criteria Cells or Cell Groupings, and flexible guidelines (criteria) for the assembly of conservation within the Criteria Cells or Cell Groupings. Criteria Cells and Cell Groupings also may be included within larger units known as Cores, Linkages, or Non-Contiguous Habitat Blocks.

In western Riverside County, many federal and state listed, or sensitive species and habitats are “covered species” under the MSHCP. In most instances the MSHCP requires no further surveys for most of the 146 covered species; however, Section 6 of the MSHCP states that additional surveys for 38 of these species is required if either the property occurs in a specific species survey PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.4
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Biological Resources

5.4-7
area (e.g., BUOW, Criteria Area Species Survey Area [CASSA]) or if potential habitat exists on the property (e.g., riparian birds or fairy shrimp). Further, the MSHCP includes policies for the review of projects in areas where habitat must be conserved (i.e., property within Criteria Cells) and policies for the protection of riparian habitats, vernal pools, and narrow endemic plants.

The City adopted the MSHCP on September 23, 2003 (Riverside Municipal Code, Chapter 16.72) and the federal and state Wildlife Agencies approved permits required to implement the MSHCP on June 22, 2004. Implementation of the MSHCP will conserve approximately 500,000 acres of habitat into a reserve system, including land already in public or quasi -public ownership and approximately 153,000 acres of land in private ownership that will be purchased or conserved through other means such as land acquisition and conservation easements. The money for purchasing private land comes from development mitigation fees imposed on new development within the boundaries of the MSHCP, as well as state and federal funds.

As a signatory to the MSHCP, the City adopted Ordinance No. 6709 (which is codified as Chapter

16.72 of the Riverside Municipal Code) and established a Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) to be used by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) to implement the MSHCP. The Project will participate in the MSHCP through the payment of the LDMF at the time building permits are issued pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 6709.

Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan
The City is located within the boundary of the adopted Habitat Conservation Plan for the endangered Stephens’ kangaroo rat (SKRHCP) administered by the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA). The SKRHCP mitigates impacts from development on the SKR by establishing a network of preserves and a system for managing and monitoring them. The SKRHCP initially established Core Reserves for the conservation of key SKR populations.

Outside of the Core Reserves, the SKRHCP established a fee assessment area by which individual projects are granted coverage under the HCP by payment of SKR fees. The MSHCP , through its goals for SKR, reaffirms the conservation goals of the SKRHCP, while expanding the coverage area outside of the original coverage boundaries of the SKRHCP. Neither the SKRHCP nor MSHCP requires project-specific SKR surveys for sites located outside of the existing Core Reserves. Instead, payments of SKR fees are sufficient to obtain take authorization for SKR .

Project proponents are required to pay the SKR Preservation Fee in effect at the time a grading permit is issued which is collected per Riverside Municipal Code Section 16.40.040.

5.4.2.4 Local Regulations
Riverside General Plan
The City’s General Plan Open Space and Conservation element in the General Plan 2025 (GP 2025) seek to preserve existing natural resources in the City. Objectives and policies that relate to biological resources and would apply to the Project include the following:

Objective OS-1: Preserve and expand open space areas and linkages throughout the City and sphere of influence to protect the natural and visual character of t he community and to provide for appropriate active and passive recreational uses.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.4 City of Riverside
Biological Resources Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.4-8
Policy OS-1.1: Protect and preserve open space and natural habitat wherever possible.

Policy OS-1.5: Require the provision of open space linkages between development projects, consistent with the provisions of the Trails Master Plan, Open Space Plan and other environmental considerations including the MSHCP.

Policy OS-1.6: Ensure that any new development that does occur is effectively integrated through convenient street and/or pedestrian connections, as well as through visual connections.

Objective OS -5: Protect biotic communities and critical habitats for endangered species throughout the General Plan Area.

Policy OS -5.2: Continue to participate in the MSHCP Program and ensure all projects comply with applicable requirements.

5.4.3 Comments Received in Response to NOP
There were no comments received in response to the NOP related to biological resources.

5.4.4 Project Design Considerations
The light poles and large trees on or adjacent to the project site may be used by hawks, ravens, or other large birds for nesting. The Project intends to protect in place and k eep as part of the Project, the existing Mexican fan palm trees located along Mission Grove Parkway . The preservation of these trees will allow this potentially suitable nesting habitat to remain available for bird use.

5.4.5 Thresholds of Significance
The City of Riverside has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City of Riverside generally utilizes the CEQA significance thresholds in Appendix G (“Environmental Checklist”) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

According to the Appendix G significance thresholds, impacts rel ated to the Mission Grove Apartments Project may be considered potentially significant if the proposed Project would:
• (Threshold A) h ave a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Wildlife Service;
• (Threshold B) have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • (Threshold C) have a substantial adverse effect on F ederally-protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.4
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Biological Resources

5.4-9
• (Threshold D) interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
• (Threshold E) conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and
• (Threshold F) conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

5.4.6 Environmental Impacts
Threshold A: Would the 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 regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Wildlife Service?
Special-Status Plant Species
According to the CNDDB and CNPS, 15 special-status plant species have been recorded in the USGS Riverside East quadrangle. The Project site consists of an existing structure within a developed shopping center with associated paved parking. These existing site components have eliminated the ability of the Project site to provide suitable habitat for special-status plant species.

Based on habitat requirements for specific special -status plant species and the availability and quality of habitats needed by each species, the Project site does not provide suitable habitat for any of the special-status plant species known to occur in the area and are presumed to be absent from the Project site. Therefore, as the Project site does not provide suitable habitat for speci al- status plant species and these species are considered absent from the Project site, development of the Project would not result in the displacement of any special -status plant species known to occur in the USGS Riverside East quadrangle.

Special-Status Wildlife Species
According to the CNDDB, 29 special-status wildlife species have reported occurrences within the USGS Riverside East quadrangle. A review of the habitat requirements of each of the special - status wildlife species listed in the CNDDB query results indicates the Project site does not contain nor would be able to provide potentially suitable habitat for any of these wildlife species. Although loggerhead shrike was reported within 1 mile of the site, due to the level of development in t he surrounding area of the site and the level of development on the site itself, the species is not expected to occur. Given the habitat quality, none of these species has more than a low potential of being present. Therefore, as the Project site does not contain nor would be able to provide suitable habitat for special-status wildlife species, and as these species are considered to have no more than a low potential of occurring within the Project site, development of the Project would not displace any spec ial-status wildlife species known to occur in the USGS Riverside East Quadrangle.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.4 City of Riverside
Biological Resources Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.4-10
Protected Nesting Birds
Most birds and their active nests are protected from “take” (meaning destruction, pursuit, possession, etc.) under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or Sections 3503 through 3801 of the California Fish and Game Code. Activities that cause destruction of active nests, or that cause nest abandonment and subsequent death of eggs or young, may constitute violations of one or both of these laws. The light poles and large trees on or adjacent to the project site may be used by hawks, ravens, or other large birds for nesting. Trees, shrubs, and other vegetation may provide nest sites for smaller birds, and burrowing owls may nest in ground squirrel burrows, pipes, or similar features.

Therefore, to minimize or avoid potential impacts to migratory birds and raptors, the Project would implement mitigation measure MM BIO-1, which would require any landscape vegetation removal to occur outside of the nesting bird season , which is typically February 1 st to August 31 st, if
feasible. If vegetation removal must occur during nesting season, pre- construction nesting surveys would be conducted by a qualified biologist within three (3) days prior to vegetation removal activities to ensure no active nests are present. If active nests are present, a protective avoidance buffer will be established until the young have fledged or the qualified biologist has determined the nest to be inactive. The size of the buffer will be determined by a qualified biologist.

Vegetation removal would resume once nesting activity is complete.

With the implementation of MM BIO-1, potential impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant.

Threshold B: Would the 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 Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The Project site consists of an existing structure with associated paved surface parking within a developed commercial shopping center. The Project site does not support any discernible drainage courses, inundated areas, or wetland vegetation that would be considered riparian/riverine habitat under Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. The Project site does not contain any special-status or sensitive natural communities, nor does the Project site contain any federally designated Critical Habitat. No impacts to sensitive natural communities or habitats would occur as a result of the Project.

Threshold C : Would the Project ha ve a substantial adverse effect on F ederally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The Project site assessment indicated that there are no records of wetlands or potential jurisdictional drainage features existing within the Project site and no potentially jurisdictional drainage features, wetlands, or riparian areas were observed on site during the February 2023 survey. Existing conditions and results indicate the site is entirely developed, with no ephemeral drainage features or culverts observed and no riparian vegetation is present on the Project site.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.4
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Biological Resources

5.4-11
Based on these findings, the Project would not have any adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands and would not result in direct or indirect impacts to any delineated jurisdictional waters, including wetlands. No impacts to wetlands would occur as a result of the Project.

Threshold D: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migr atory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Wildlife movement includes seasonal migration along corridors and daily movements for foraging.

The Project site does not contain any essential connectivity areas, natural landscape blocks, natural areas, or potential riparian connections. The Project site is developed and bordered by existing paved roads and development on all adjoining properties that restrict wildlife movement in the Project vicinity. The majority of wildlife movement within the Project site is anticipated to be limited to wildlife present on site or within the ornamental vegetation present within the Project site. The Project would not substantially limit wildlife movement. N o impacts to established wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites would occur as a result of the Project.

Threshold E: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The City’s General Plan Open Space and Conservation element in the General Plan 2025 (GP 2025) seeks to preserve existing natural resources and open space in the City. The Project will not conflict with Objective OS-1, Policies OS-1.1 and 1.5 as the site does not contain open space or natural habitat and would be consistent with Policy OS-1.6 as the proposed new development is effectively integrated with existing convenient street and pedestrian connections as well as visual connections. The Project will not conflict with Objective OS-5, Policy OS-5.2 as it will comply with all applicable requirements of the MSHCP, including payment of the MSHCP fee.

The City does not have a tree preservation ordinance, but it has an adopted Urban Forestry Policy Manual to establish guidelines for planting, pruning, preservation, and removal of all trees in City rights-of-ways (PW). The City Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance of all street trees planted by the Project within City right-of-way in accordance with the Urban Forestry Policy Manual (PW, p. 14). The Project does not propose the removal of any existing trees within public rights-of-way. As discussed, the Project intends to protect in place the existing Mexican fan palm trees located along Mission Grove Parkway south and keep as part of the Project. N o impacts from conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would occur as a result of the Project.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.4 City of Riverside
Biological Resources Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.4-12
Threshold F: Would the 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?
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The Project site is located within the MSHCP Plan Area. The site is not located in a Criteria Cell.

The MSHCP requires that projects comply with its Sections 6.1.2 (Protection of Species within Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools), 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species),

6.1.4 (Urban and Wildlands Interface), 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures), Appendix C (Standard Best Management Practices), and Section 7.5.3 (Construction Guidelines).

The Project’s consistency with each of these sections is discussed below.

Section 6.1.2 Protection of Species within Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools – The Project site is developed and does not contain riparian/riverine areas, vernal pools, or suitable habitat for sensitive species associated with these habitats.

Section 6.1.3 Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species – The Project site is not within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area and the Project site does not support suitable habitat for any MSHCP narrow endemic plant species.

Section 6.1.4 Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban Wildlands Interface – The Project site is not adjacent to conserved lands or lands in a Criteria Area described for conservation.

Therefore, the Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines do not apply to this project.

Section 6.3.2 Additional Survey Needs and Procedures – The Project site is not within an MSHCP mapped survey area for Criteria Area P lant Species, amphibians, small mammals, or burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia).

Appendix C Standard Best Management Practices – The Project site is not adjacent to conserved lands or lands in a Criteria Area described for conservation. Therefore, the Standard Best Management Practices do not apply to this project.

Section 7.5.3 Construction Guidelines – The Project site is not within the Criteria Area or PQP lands. Therefore, the Construction Guidelines do not apply to this project.

Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan
The Project is within the SKR HCP fee area. However, the Project is within an existing urban development built environment with no suitable habitat for the species. Despite not having any suitable habitat for this species , the Project is required to pay the SKR mitigation fee as it is located in the fee area of this HCP.

The Project site is not located within any other Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. The Project site is located in a developed, highly urbanized area and would not impact any sensitive habitat or special-status species. No impact would occur.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.4
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Biological Resources

5.4-13

5.4.7 Proposed Mitigation Measures
An Environmental Impact Report is required to describe feasible mitigation measures that could minimize significant adverse impacts (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4).

MM BIO-1: To avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to migratory birds and raptors, landscape vegetation removal will take place outside of the bird nesting season of February 1 through August

31. If vegetation removal must take place during nesting season, a pre- construction nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (i. e., a biologist experienced with performing nesting bird presence/absence surveys and experienced with identifying signs of active nesting) within three (3) days prior to vegetation removal activities to ensure no active nests are present.

If active nests are present, a protective avoidance buffer (a no work zone buffer around the tree containing the active nest as identified by the qualified biologist) will be established until the young have fledged or the nest is determined to be inactive by the qualified biologist. The design of the avoidance buffer shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified biologist in conjunction with the City. The size of the protective buffer will be determined by the qualified biologist depending on the nesting species. Vegetation removal may resume once nesting activity is complete.

5.4.8 Cumulative Environmental Effects
This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the Project in conjunction with other development projects in the geographic area based on a summary of projections approach resulting from full General Plan buildout in the City.

The Project would not contribute to or cause significant cumulative impacts to biological resources. The Project includes the development of apartments within an already developed commercial shopping center, located in a highly urbanized portion of the City. The Project site does not contain any sensitive habitat, nor is the site suitable to support any sensitive or special- status wildlife and plant species. The Project site would utilize the developed infrastructure of the commercial shopping center and would not require construction or development within areas containing sensitive biological resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts to biological resources as a result of the Project would be less than significant.

5.4.9 References
The following references were used in the preparation of this section of the EIR:

CNDDB
California Natural Diversity Database, RareFind 5.
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data (Accessed November 2022).

CNPS California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare Plants. https://rareplants.cnps.org (Accessed November 2022).

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.4 City of Riverside
Biological Resources Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.4-14
LSA 2023
LSA Associates, Inc., Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis and Biology Report, Mission Grove Project, Riverside, Riverside County, California. April 2023. (Appendix C) PW
City of Riverside Public Works Department, Urban Forestry Policy Manual, August 2015. (Available at
https://www.riversideca.gov/publicworks/trees/pdf/UrbanForestry-TOC.pdf, accessed January 2021).

MSHCP Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. https://rctlma.org/Portals/0/mshcp/volume1/index.html (Accessed June 2023).

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.5
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Cultural Resources

5.5-1

5.5 Cultural Resources
This section evaluates the Project’s potential impacts to historical resources, unique archaeological resources, and disturbing human remains.

The following discussion is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by LSA in April 2023. This report is included as Appendix D of this EIR.

5.5.1 Setting
Natural Setting
Climate and Watershed
The project region is characterized by a temperate climate, with dry, hot summers and moderate winters. Rainfall ranges from 12 to 16 inches annually. Precipitation usually occurs in the form of winter rain, with warm monsoonal showers in summer. Two ephemeral drainages transect the project, and the nearest natural reliable source of water is the Santa Ana River, which drains southwest approximately 9 miles west of the project.

Biology
At an average elevation of approximately 1,600 feet, the project is within the Lower Sonoran Life Zone of California, which ranges from below sea level to 3,500 feet above sea level. Project area vegetation included Cuba bean, cheeseweed mallow, fiddleneck, ground wreath, mustard, Russian thistle, star thistle, telegraph weed, xeric grasses, eucalyptus, olive, pepper and tamarisk trees. Extensive fauna are known locally, including many endemic species of reptiles, birds, and insects.

Geology
The project area is located at the northern end of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province that extends from the Transverse Ranges to the tip of Baja California and includes the Los Angeles Basin. This region is characterized by a series of mountain ranges separated by northwest-trending valleys subparallel to faults branching from the San Andreas Fault. The geology of this province is similar to that of the Sierra Nevada, with numerous rock outcroppings useful to the Native Americans for resource milling, shelter, and ceremonial art.

Cultural Setting
Chronologies of prehistoric cultural change in Southern California have been attempted numerous times, and several are reviewed in Moratto. No single description is universally accepted as the various chronologies are based primarily on material developments identified by researchers familiar with sites in a particular region and variation exists essentially due to the differences in those items found at the sites. Small differences occur over time and space, which combine to form patterns that are variously interpreted.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.5 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Mission Grove Apartments DEIR

5.5-2

Currently, two primary regional culture chronology syntheses are commonly referenced in the archaeological literature. The first (Wallace 1955) describes four cultural horizons or time periods:

Horizon I – Early Man (9000–6000 BC), Horizon II – Milling Stone Assemblages (6000–3000 BC), Horizon III – Intermediate Cultures (3000 BC–AD 500), and Horizon IV – Late Prehistoric Cultures (AD 500– historic contact). This chronology was refined using absolute chronological dates obtained after 1955.

The second cultural chronology is based broadly on Southern California prehistoric cultures and was also revised. Warren’s (1984) chronology includes five periods in prehistory: Lake Mojave (7000–5000 BC), Pinto (5000– 2000 BC), Gypsum (2000 BC– AD 500), Saratoga Springs (AD 500–1200), and Protohistoric (AD 1200– historic contact). Changes in settlement pattern and subsistence focus are viewed as cultural adaptations to a changing environment, which begins with gradual environmental warming in the late Pleistocene, continues with the desiccation of the desert lakes, followed by a brief return to pluvial conditions, and concludes with a general warming and drying trend, with periodic reversals that continue to the present.

Ethnographic Overview
The project area is near the intersection of the traditional cultural territories of the Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and Luiseño. Tribal territories were somewhat fluid and changed over time. The first written accounts of these Southern California tribes are attributed to the mission fathers, and later documentation was by others as indicated below.

Cahuilla
The territory of the Cahuilla ranged from the San Bernardino Mountains south to Borrego Springs and the Chocolate Mountains, from Orocopia Mountain to the east, to the San Jacinto Plain and Palomar Mountain to the west . Cahuilla territory lies within the geographic center of Southern California and encompassed diverse environments ranging from inland river valleys and foothills to mountains and desert.

Cahuilla villages, generally located near water sources within canyons or near alluvial fans, comprised groups of related individuals, generally from a single lineage, and the territory around the village was owned by the villagers. Like other Native American groups in Southern California, the Cahuilla were semi-nomadic peoples leaving their villages and utilizing temporary campsites to exploit seasonably available plant and animal resources.

Cahuilla subsistence was based primarily on acorns, honey mesquite, screw beans, piñon nuts, and cactus fruit, supplemented by a variety of wild fruits and berries, tubers, roots, and greens.

Hunting deer, rabbit, antelope, bighorn sheep, reptiles, small rodents, quail, doves, ducks, and reptiles by means of bows, throwing sticks, traps, and communal drives is documented.

From the 1870s to the early 1890s, Cahuilla displaced from Rancho San Bernardino occupied a village along Spring Brook on the northwest slope of Little Rubidoux Mountain, which became known as the Spring Rancheria (Site 33-00678). The Rancheria Cahuilla worked in the Riverside PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.5
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Cultural Resources

5.5-3

area as agricultural and water system maintenance workers, as well as housekeepers. The settlement was abandoned in the 1890s during an economic downturn.

Gabrielino (Gabrieleño)
The territory of the Gabrielino included portions of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties during ethnohistoric times, and also extended inland into northwestern Riverside County. It encompassed an extremely diverse environment that included coastal beaches, lagoons and marshes, inland river valleys, foothills and mountains.

The Gabrielino caught and collected seasonally available food resources, and led a semi - sedentary lifestyle, living in permanent communities along inland watercourses and coastal estuaries. Individuals from these villages took advantage of the varied resources available.

Seasonally, as foods became available, native groups moved to temporary camps to collect plant foods such as acorns, buckwheat, chía, berries, and fruits, and to conduct communal rabbit and deer hunts. They also established seasonal camps along the coast and near bays and estuaries to gather shellfish and hunt waterfowl.

The Gabrielino lived in small communities, which were the focus of family life. Patrilineally linked, extended families occupied each village. Both clans and villages were apparently exogamous, marrying individuals from outside the clan or village. Gabrielino villages were politically independent and were administered by a chief, who inherited his position from his father.

Luiseño
Prior to the Spanish occupation of California, the territory of the Luiseño extended along the coast from Agua Hedionda Creek to the south, Aliso Creek to the northwest, and the Elsinore Valley and Palomar Mountain to the east. These territorial boundaries were somewhat fluid and changed through time. They encompassed an extremely diverse environment that included coastal beaches, lagoons and marshes, inland river valleys and foothills, and mountain groves of oaks and evergreens. The Luiseño were first encountered by the Spanish missionaries in the late 18 th
century.

The Luiseño lived in small communities, which were the focus of family life. Patrilineally linked, extended families occupied each village. Luiseño villages were politically independent and were administered by a chief who inherited his position from his father. Luiseño villages generally were located in valley bottoms, along streams, or along coastal strands near mountain ranges sheltered in coves or canyons, near a water source, and in a location that was easily defended.

The Luiseño took advantage of the varied resources available. Luiseño subsistence was based primarily on seeds (e.g., acorns, grass seed, manzanita, sunflower, sage, chía, and pine nuts) that were dried and ground to be cooked into a mush. Their diet also included game animals (e.g., deer, rabbit, jackrabbit, wood rat, mice, antelope, and many types of birds). They established seasonal camps along the coast and near bays and estuaries to gather shellfish and hunt waterfowl; and they utilized fire for crop management and engaged in communal rabbit drives.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.5 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Mission Grove Apartments DEIR

5.5-4

Historic Overview
In California, the historic era is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present). Since there were no resources identified, the historic overview will focus on the County and local community during the American Period/20
th century.

Riverside County
The Southern Pacific Railroad completed its line from Los Angeles through the San Gorgonio Pass in 1876 bringing settlers into southwestern San Bernardino County, creating a boom of agricultural and land development during the 1880s. Although the towns of San Bernardino and Riverside (established in 1851 and 1870, respectively) both benefitted from the boom, by the last decade of the 19
th century, social, political, and economic frictions developed between the two communities; Riverside was Republican and temperance minded, while San Bernardino was predominantly Democratic, had no prohibition on saloons, and was secessionist during the Civil War. Both towns were also vying for settlers and spheres of influence in an era in which some communities such as Grapeland (in what is today Fontana) and Sunnyvale (in Moreno Valley) were either stagnating or being abandoned. After litigation alleging preferential use of tax revenues by San Bernardino, Riverside residents joined (then) San Diego County residents in the Temecula and San Jacinto Valleys and the desert region (who disliked the great distance to their county seat) successfully petitioning the State legislature to form Riverside County in 1893.

Transportation, agriculture, and the control of water continued to be central themes in the settlement, development, and growth of Riverside County.

The County thrived on its agricultural economy until the end of World War II, after which there was a gradual transition toward manufacturing, construction, commerce, transportation, and ultimately suburban development.

City of Riverside
Riverside began as a colony created by John W. North, a real estate speculator from upstate New York, and James Greaves, his associate and fellow speculator. North and Greaves formed the Southern California Colony Association, which attracted settlers from eastern and Midwestern cities eager to live in a warmer climate on inexpensive land. They created the Mile Square in 1870, a plot of land where colonists would first settle. In 1875, the Riverside Land and Irrigating Company succeeded the Southern California Colony Association and that same year, the City of Riverside incorporated. During the Southern California land boom of the 1870s and 1880s, Riverside grew rapidly. The introduction of the navel orange in the mid -1870s gave the community’s economy an important boost and led to the spread of citrus cultivation throughout Southern California with Riverside at the forefront of the industry. Riverside continued to prosper after Southern California’s boom of the 1880s subsided and its thriving citriculture fostered the development of related industries such as fruit packing and packing equipment. These were PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.5
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Cultural Resources

5.5-5

followed by the establishment of unrelated industries such as aluminum, aerospace, and paper products, which sustained the City’s prosperity during the 20 th century. After World War II, residential construction displaced citrus groves and the economic base was transformed by the emergence modern industrial and commercial development.

5.5.2 Related Regulations`

5.5.2.1 Federal Regulations
National Register of Historic Places
Cultural resources are considered during federal undertakings chiefly under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) through one of its implementing regulations, 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800 (Protection of Historic Properties), as well as the National Environmental Policy Act. Properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to Native Americans are considered under Section 101(d)(6)(A) of the National Historic Preservation Act. Other federal laws include the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1989, among others.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 United States Code 470f) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on any district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and to give the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings (36 CFR 800.1). Under Section 106, the significance of any adversely affected cultural resource is assessed and mitigation measures are proposed to reduce any impacts to an acceptable level. Significant cultural resources are those listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP per the criteria listed below (36 CFR 60.4).

Certain properties are usually not considered for eligibility for the NRHP. These include ordinary cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or use for religious purposes, moved or reconstructed structures, properties primarily commemorative in nature, or properties that have become significant within the last 50 years.

These types of properties can qualify if they are an integral part of a district that does meet the criteria, or if they fall within certain specific categories relating to architecture or association with historically significant people or events. The vast majority of archaeological sites that qualify for listing do so under Criterion D, Research Potential.

5.5.2.2 State Regulations
California Register of Historic Resources
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.5 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Mission Grove Apartments DEIR

5.5-6

The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is a guide to cultural resources that must be considered when a government agency undertakes a discretionary action subject to C EQA.

The CRHR helps government agencies identify, evaluate, and protect California’s historical resources, and indicates properties to be protected from substantial adverse change (California Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 5024.1(a)). The CRHR is administered through the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) that is part of the California State Parks system.

A historical resource is one listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, a resource included in a local register of historical resources, or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[a][1-3]). A resource shall be considered historically significant if it:

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

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the CRHR requires sufficient time to have passed to allow a “scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource.” Fifty years is a general estimate of the time needed to understand the historic al importance of a resource, according to the state Office of Historic Preservation. The CRHR also requires a resource to possess integrity, defined as “the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.” Archaeological resources can sometimes qualify as “historical resources” (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[c][1]).

According to CEQA, all buildings constructed over 50 years ago, which also possess architectural or historical significance may be considered potential historic resources. Most resources must meet the 50-year threshold for historic significance, but resources less than 50 years in age may be eligible for listing on the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand their historical importance.

If a project can be demonstrated to cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.5
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Cultural Resources

5.5-7

PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, the probability is high it meets any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person
The state administers two other programs: California Historical Landmarks and California Points of Historical Interest. California Historical Landmarks are buildings, sites, features, or events of statewide significance with anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other historical value. California Points of Historical Interest are buildings, sites, features, or events of local (County or C ity) significance with anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other historical value.

Public Resources Codes Governing Human Remains
The disposition of human remains is governed by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98. It falls within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). If human remains are discovered, the county coroner must be notified within 48 hours and there no further disturbance to the site where the remains were found should occur.

If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner is responsible to contact the NAHC within 24 hours. Pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98, the NAHC will immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native Americans, so they can inspect the burial site and make recommendations for trea tment or disposal.

5.5.2.3 Local Regulations
Riverside Municipal Code, Title 20
The City’s historical preservation program is among the most active in the state. Riverside adopted Title 20 of the Riverside Municipal Code (RMC), otherwise known as the “preservation ordinance,” and created the Cultural Heritage Board in 1969. This ordinance forms the primary body of local historical preservation law. The California Office of Historic Preservation designated Riverside as a Certified Local Government; a distinction that ensures the City’s preservation program meets all federal and state standards.

RMC Title 20 establishes procedures for preserving, protecting, and designating significant cultural resources should the resource be considered a historical/cultural resource, and outlines PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.5 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Mission Grove Apartments DEIR

5.5-8

the criteria for Cultural Heritage Landmarks (RMC, Title 20, Section 20.50.010[U]), Structures or Resources of Merit (RMC, Title 20, Section 20.50.010[FF]), and Historic Districts (RMC, Title 20, Section 20.50.010[O]). A cultural resource may be eligible for one of the three City designations:

Cultural Heritage Landmark Designation Criteria
“Landmark” means any improvement or natural feature that is an exceptional example of a historical, archaeological, cultural, architectural, community, aesthetic or artistic heritage of the City, retains a high degree of integrity, and meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history

2. Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history

3. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship

4. Represents the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect, or important creative individual

5. Embodies elements that possess high artistic values or represents a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation

6. Reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning, or cultural landscape

7. Is one of the last remaining examples in the City, region, state, or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type of specimen

8. Has yielded or may likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory Resource or Structure of Merit Criteria
“Resource or Structure of Merit” means any improvement or natural feature that contributes to the broader understanding of the historical, archaeological, cultural, architectural, community, aesthetic or artistic heritage of the City, retains sufficient integrity, and:

1. Has a unique location or singular physical characteristics or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood community or of the City

2. Is an example of a type of building which was once common but is now rare in its neighborhood, community, or area

3. Is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare

4. A Cultural Resource that could be eligible under Landmark Criteria no longer exhibiting a high level of integrity, however, retaining sufficient integrity to convey significance under one or more of the Landmark Criteria

5. Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.5
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Cultural Resources

5.5-9

6. An improvement or resource that no longer exhibits the high degree of integrity sufficient for Landmark designation, yet still retains sufficient integrity under one or more of the Landmark criteria to convey cultural resource significance as a Structure of Merit Historic District
A “Historic District” contains either:

1. A concentration, linkage, or continuity of cultural resources, where at least fifty percent of the structures or elements retain significant history integrity (a “geographic Historic District”)

2. A thematically-related grouping of cultural resources that contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan or physical development, and which have been designated or determined eligible for designation as a historic district by the Historic Preservation Officer, Board, or City Council, or is listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources, or is a California Historical Landmark or a California Point of Historical Interest (a “thematic Historic District”)

In addition to either number 1 or 2 above, the area must also:

1. Exemplify or reflect special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural, or natural history

2. Identify with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history

3. Embody distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship

4. Represent the work of notable builders, designers, or architects

5. Embody a collection of elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship that represents a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation

6. Reflect significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning

7. Convey a sense of historic and architectural cohesiveness through its design, setting, materials, workmanship or association

8. Yield or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory City of Riverside General Plan 2025
The Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan 2025 contains policies related to the historic and prehistoric cultural resources in the City. The policies are used in conjunction with present and future goals of land use planning for the preservation of cultural resources. The Historic Preservation Element contains information pertaining to the City’s historic context, which identifies themes important in the development of the City and can be used to identify historic resources that reflect those themes. The Historic Preservation Element also discusses available PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.5 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Mission Grove Apartments DEIR

5.5-10

federal, state, and local incentives for historic preservation. Objectives and policies from the Historic Preservation Element that are relevant to the project include:

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 F ederal cultural resources protection and management laws in its planning and project review process.

Policy HP-1.4: The City shall protect natural resources such as geological features, heritage trees, and landscapes in the planning and development review process and in park and open space planning.

Policy HP -1.6: The City shall use historic preservation as a tool for "smart growth" and mixed-use development.

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

Policy HP-2.2: The City shall continually update its identification and designation of cultural resources that are eligible for listing in local, state and national registers based upon the 50- year age guideline for potential historic designation eligibility.

Objective HP-4: To fully integrate the consideration of cultural resources as a major aspect of the City's planning, permitting and development activities.

Policy HP-4.3: The City shall work with the appropriate tribe to identify and address, in a culturally appropriate manner, cultural resources and tribal sacred sites through the development review process.

Objective HP -5: To ensure compatibility between new development and existing cultural resources.

Policy HP-5.1: The City shall use its design and plot plan review processes to encourage new construction to be compatible in scale and character with cultural resources and historic districts.

Policy HP-5.2: The City shall use its design and plot plan review processes to encourage the compatibility of street design, public improvements, and utility infrastructure with cultural resources and historic districts.

5.5.3 Project Design Considerations
The Project does not include specific design considerations related to reducing potential impacts to cultural resources as no existing resources have been identified within the Project site (described in further detail below). Nonetheless, appropriate mitigation measures have been PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.5
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Cultural Resources

5.5-11

recommended and will be implemented as part of the Project to ensure any potential impacts to previously unidentified cultural resources would be minimized and/or avoided. Mitigation measures MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4 are described below.

5.5.4 Methodology
The analysis of cultural resources impacts is based on empirical research presented in the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Project. The full report is included as Appendix D of this EIR. Beyond those described in Section 5.5.2, Related Regulations, the methodologies and significance thresholds employed for the cultural resources impact analyses follow.

Cultural Resources Records Search
On May 24, 2022, a records search was conducted at the Eastern Information Center. The objectives of this data review were to (1) establish the status and extent of previously recorded sties, surveys and excavations within the project area and to (2) note what types of resources might be expected to occur within the proposed project based on the existing data fr om known cultural resources sites located within a 1-mile radius.

The record search indicated there have been 49 previous studies within one (1) mile of the Project site. One of the previous studies included the entirety of the Project area. While the records search indicated no resources are within the Project area, the Project area is bracketed by 129 sites, including 124 prehistoric sites, two (2) multicomponent sites, and three (3) historic period archaeological sites. The nearest resource is located approximately 230 feet west of the Project area.

Native American Scoping
In accordance with the City requirement for discretionary tribal notification (“scoping”), LSA requested a review of the Sacred Lands File and a list of Native American contacts from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the project. The results of a Sacred Lands File search were obtained from the NAHC on June 16, 2022, which reported negative results. A list of Native American contacts recommended for notification was also received from the NAHC; LSA contacted all individuals on the list.

The results of an SLF search with negative results was obtained from the NAHC on June 16, 2022, along with a list of Native American contacts recommended for notification (see attached Native American scoping record, Appendix B). LSA contacted all individuals on the list June 16 and July 1, 2022. Responses were received from four tribes:
• The Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation (Ms. McCormick) responded on June 20, 2022, indicating the tribe has no comment on this project, defers to the more local tribes, and supports their decisions with regard to the project.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.5 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Mission Grove Apartments DEIR

5.5-12

• Pechanga Band of Indians (Paul Macarro, Cultural Coordinator) responded on June 23, 2022, indicating the project site is within ancestral territory, in the vicinity of multiple previously recorded impacted sites, nearby ancestral remains, a blue- line drainage, and that sensitivity for subsurface resources is extremely high. The tribe requests notification once the project begins the entitlement process, if it has not already; copies of all applicable archaeological reports, site records, proposed grading plans and environmental documents (e.g., Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Impact Report); government-to-government consultation with the Lead Agency; and monitoring by a Riverside County -qualified archaeologist and a professional Pechanga Tribal Monitor during earthmoving activities.
• The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (Arysa Gonzalez Romero, Cultural Resources Analyst) responded on July 6, 2022, indicating the project area is within the tribe’s traditional use area and requested copies of any cultural resource documentation (report and site records) generated in connection with this project, a map that clearly delineates the project area, and a cultural resources inventory of the project area (survey) by a qualified archaeologist prior to any development activities. • Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians (Victoria Martin, Tribal Secretary) responded on July 6, 2022, indicating the tribe is unaware of specific cultural resources that may be affected by the proposed project and requested immediate notification in the event any cultural resources are discovered.

No response was received from any of the other individuals contacted. Please see the attached record of the scoping and related correspondence.

Archaeological Field Survey
On January 27, 2023, LSA personnel conducted an archaeological field su rvey of the unpaved portions of the project area and landscaping on the southern and eastern edges of the project area. The purpose of this survey was to identify and document, prior to the beginning of ground- disturbing activities, any cultural resources and thus also to identify any area(s) that might be sensitive for buried cultural resources.

The entirety of the Project site has been subject to grading activities and construction, which have completely altered the native landscape. The survey revealed that the project area has sustained severe disturbance from development. Visibility was effectively nil, with the surface completely obscured by the commercial building, parking lot, and landscaping. Native soils were alluvium.

No native soil surface remains, and no cultural resources were identified.

5.5.5 Thresholds of Significance
The City of Riverside has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City generally utilizes the CEQA significance PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.5
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Cultural Resources

5.5-13

thresholds in Appendix G (“Environmental Checklist”) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Environmental Checklist for the Project indicates that impacts related to the Mission Grove Apartments Project may be considered potentially significant if the proposed project would:
 (Threshold A) C ause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5;
 (Threshold B) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5;
 (Threshold C) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

5.5.6 Environmental Impacts
Threshold A: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? As discussed above, no historic or archaeological resources have been documented within or adjacent to the Project site. The proposed Project site is completely developed with a 104,231- square-foot, vacant retail building and an associated surface parking lot. The vacant retail building is a former K -Mart retail store that was constructed in 1991 and was closed in 2020. As the building has no historical significance and is only 32 years old, it does not meet any of the criteria to be considered a Landmark or a Resource or Structure of Merit. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on a historical resource.

Threshold B: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? Per the findings of the Project’s Cultural Resource Assessment (2023), no known archaeological resources occur within or adjacent to the Project site and the proposed project area is within an already graded and in a fully developed area. However, it is surrounded by 129 resources within 1 mile of the site (consisting of granitic milling features, lithic scatter, ancillary buildings, building foundations, privies, and various prehistoric resources unlisted in the record search), and the only previous survey of the project area was conducted almost 40 years ago. The previous survey was not specific to the project area but of the surrounding 637 acres . Considering the surrounding recorded resources that encircle the Project site there is a moderate to high likelihood to the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources during the construction process below previously disturbed depths. Therefore, based on the available information, the City may consider the project area to have moderate to high sensitivity for potential impacts to cultural resources.

Though the Project site is considered to be potentially sensitive for buried cultural resources, with the implementation of recommended mitigation measures (see below, Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4), potential Project impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant . In order to identify any unknown cultural resources, archaeological and PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.5 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Mission Grove Apartments DEIR

5.5-14

paleontological monitoring will be performed for any ground- breaking activities (MM CUL-2 ).

Additionally, if any cultural resources are inadvertently discovered, the detailed provisions for the treatment and disposition of the resources in MM CUL -3 will be followed. These mitigation measures will ensure that any inadvertently discovered cultural resources are avoided and/or preserved. Therefore, potential Project impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-4.

Threshold C: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
The Project’s Cultural Resource Assessment did not report the presence or discovery of human remains. However, construction could have the potential to disturb or destroy previously undiscovered, buried Native American human remains as well as other human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. All parties shall be consistent with Public Resources Code §5097.98, sites containing human remains must be identified and treated in a sensitive manner. In the event that Native American human remains or other human remains are inadvertently discovered during Project-related construction activities, the implementation of the City’s standard condition of approval (as outlined below), in accordance with State Law, would reduce potential Project-related impacts to less than significant.

5.5.7 Proposed Mitigation Measures
An Environmental Impact Report is required to describe feasible mitigation measures that could minimize significant adverse impacts (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4).

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

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

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.5
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Cultural Resources

5.5-15

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

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

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

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

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.5 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Mission Grove Apartments DEIR

5.5-16

a. Accommodate the process for on- site reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing and basic recordation have been completed; b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository within Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore will be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility within Riverside County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation; c. If more than one Native American tribe or band is involved with the project and cannot come to a consensus as to the disposition of cultural materials, they shall be curated at the Western Science Center or Riverside Metropolitan Museum by default; and
d. At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground- disturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting monitoring activities conducted by the project archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pre-grade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced will be submitted to the city of Riverside, Eastern Information Center, and interested tribes.

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

A Standard Condition of Approval will include the following – Consistent with State Law:

5.5-17

activities within 100 feet of the find. The Project proponent shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner and the City of Riverside Community & Economic Development Department immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b) unless more current State law requirements are in effect at the time of the discovery. Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If human remains are determined as those of Native American origin, the Applicant shall comply with the state relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC Section 5097). The coroner shall contact the NAHC to determine the most likely descendant(s). The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The Disposition of the remains shall be overseen by the most likely descendant(s) to determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and any associated grave artifacts.

The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials will be proprietary and not disclosed to the general public. The County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission in accordance with California Public Resources Code 5097.98. No photographs are to be taken except by the coroner, with written approval by the consulting Tribe(s).

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

5.5.8 Cumulative Environmental Effects
The Project, in conjunction with other planned and pending projects in the Project vicinity, would cumulatively increase the potential to encounter sensitive cultural and archaeological resources.

There would be cumulatively considerable impacts to cultural resources if the project level impacts were significant for any of the cumulative projects. The planned and pending projects in the Project vicinity, listed in Table 4.0-1 include about 6 projects consisting of residential, commercial, distribution warehouse, and Meridian Specific Plan – West Campus Upper Plateau Project with warehouses for high- cube fulfillment and cold storage, business park office, warehouse, and mixed-use buildings, retail, and park (active and public).

In the event that cultural and/or archaeological resources are discovered, each individual project would be required to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements and mitigate any potential impacts to resources on the individual project site. Potential impacts of the Project would PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.5 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Mission Grove Apartments DEIR

5.5-18

be reduced to a less than significant level due to implementation of mitigation measures MM CUL- 1 through MM CUL-4 that would protect cultural and archaeological resources and state law, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b), that would protect human remains .

Compliance with CEQA requirements, including the implementation of recommendations provided in project-specific cultural resource studies, on all new development would ensure that, cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation and would not be cumulatively considerable.

5.5.9 References
The following references were used in the preparation of this section of the EIR:

LSA 2023 LSA Associates, Inc., Cultural Resources Assessment, Anton Mission Grove Project, April 2023. (Appendix D)
GP 2025
City of Riverside General Plan 2025. Riverside, CA. November 2007.

Available at https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/city-plans/general-plan-0, accessed September 2023.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 6
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Energy

5.6-1

5.6 Energy
The focus of this section is to analyze potential impacts related to Energy. The analysis in this section is based on data and information in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Impact Analysis Memorandum for the proposed Mission Grove Apartments Project prepared by LSA Associates. (LSA 2023; Appendix B)

5.6.1 Setting
This section provides an overview of the existing energy conditions in the Project area and region.

Existing Energy Setting
Energy use can affect air quality and other natural resources adversely. Energy is primarily categorized in three areas: electricity used in buildings and cities for lighting and other services; natural gas used for building heating, cooking, and other industrial processes; and fuels used for transportation. Fossil fuels used for any of these types of energy must be burned to create electricity that powers homes and commercial/industrial buildings, to create heat, and to power vehicles. The burning or combusting of fuels releases pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Many factors affect the level of impact from fuels. When used in transportation, the impact from energy corresponds to the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks, and public transportation; the mode of travel such as auto, carpool, and public transit; miles traveled by these modes; and the type of fuel used. Construction and routine operation and maintenance of transportation infrastructure also consume energy as do residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. This typically occurs through the use of natural gas for heating, cooking, and industrial processes along with the use of electricity.

California Energy Use Overview
The most recent data for California’s estimated energy use, Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) California State Profile and Energy Estimates in 2020 (EIA 2023), included:
• Approximately 7,881 trillion British Thermal Units (BTU) of energy; • Approximately 683 million barrels of petroleum;
• Approximately 2,137 billion cubic feet of natural gas; and • Approximately 1 million short tons of coal were consumed.

The most recent data provided by the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) for energy use in California by demand sector is from 2020 and is reported as follows:
• Approximately 34.0 percent transportation;
• Approximately 24.6 percent industrial;
• Approximately 19.6 percent commercial; and
• Approximately 21.8 percent residential.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.6 City of Riverside
Energy Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.6-2

In 2021, the total electric generation for California was 277,764 gigawatt hours (GWh), which is 2 percent, or 5,188 GWh more than 2020. Renewable energy generation increased 3.5 percent in 2021 from 2020 and renewable energy accounted 0.51 percent more of the total system mix than in 2020. Table 5.6-1 provides total system electricity generation for California in 2021. (CEC 2023) Table 5.6-1 – California 2021 Total System Electric Generation Fuel Type
California
In-State
Generation
(GWh)
Percent of
California In-
State
Generation
Northwest
Imports
(GWh)
Southwest
Imports
(GWh)
California
Energy Mix
(GWh)
Total
California
Power Mix
Coal 303 0.2% 181 7,788 8,272 3.0%
Natural Gas 97,431 50.2% 45 7,880 105,356 37.9%
Oil 37 0.0% - - 37 0.0%
Other 382 0.2% 68 15 465 0.2%
Nuclear 16,477 8.5% 524 8,756 25,758 9.3%
Large Hydro 12,036 6.2% 12,042 1,578 25,656 9.2%
Unspecified - 0.0% 8,156 10,731 18,887 6.8%
Total
Thermal and
Non-
Renewables
126,666 65.2% 21,017 36,748 184,431 66.4%
Biomass 5,381 2.8% 864 26 6,271 2.3%
Geothermal 11,116 5.7% 192 1,906 13,214 4.8%
Small Hydro 2,531 1.3% 304 1 2,835 1.0%
Solar 33,260 17.1% 220 5,979 39,458 14.2%
Wind 15,173 7.8% 9,976 6,405 31,555 11.4%
Total
Renewables 67,461 34.8% 11,555 14,317 93,333 33.6%
Total System
Energy 194,127 100.0% 32,572 51,064 277,764 100.0%

A summary of, and context for, energy consumption and energy demand within the State is presented in “U.S. Energy Information Administration, California State Profile and Energy Estimates, Quick Facts” excerpted below:
• In 2021, California was the seventh-largest producer of crude oil among the 50 states, and, as of January 2021, it ranked third in crude oil refining capacity. • California is the largest consumer of jet fuel and the second -largest consumer of motor gasoline among the 50 states and the State accounted for 15 percent of the nation’s jet fuel consumption and 10 percent of motor gasoline consumption in 2020. • In 2019, California was the second- largest total energy consumer among the states, but its per capita energy consumption was less than in all other states except for Rhode Island, due in part to its mild climate and its energy efficiency programs.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 6
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Energy

5.6-3
• In 2021, California was the nation’s top producer of electricity from solar, geothermal, and biomass energy. The State was fourth in the nation in conventional hydroelectric power generation, down from second in 2019, in part because of drought and increased water demand.
• In 2021, California was the fourth- largest electricity producer in the nation, but the State was also the nation’s second-largest consumer of electricity. In 2020, the State received about 30% of its electricity supply from generating facilities outside of California, including imports from Mexico. (EIA 2022)
Electricity
Electricity will be provided to the Project by Riverside Public Utilities (RPU). RPU derives electricity from varied sources including natural gas, coal, nuclear, biomass, geothermal, solar, wind, and hydroelectric. Table 5.6- 2 identifies RPU’s specific proportional shares of electricity sources in 2022. As indicated in Table 5.6-2, the 2022 RPU Power Mix has renewable energy at

45.4 percent of the overall energy resources. Power content mixes are generally released in July each year.

Table 5.6-2 – RPU 2022 Power Content Mix
Energy Resources 2022 RPU Power Mix
Eligible Renewable1 45.4%
Biomass & Biowaste 0.0%
Geothermal 33.4%
Eligible Hydroelectric 0.0%
Solar 10.5%
Wind 1.5%
Coal 19.4%
Large Hydroelectric 1.2%
Natural Gas 4.5%
Nuclear 4.7%
Other 0.0%
Unspecified Sources of Power2 24.8%
Total 100%
1The eligible renewable percentage above does not reflect RPS compliance, which is determined using a different methodology. 2Unspecified power is electricity that has been purchased through open market transactions and is not traceable to a specific generation source.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.6 City of Riverside
Energy Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.6-4

Natural Gas
The following summary of natural gas resources and service providers, delivery systems, and associated regulation is excerpted from information provided by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
“The CPUC regulates natural gas utility service for approximately 10.8 million customers that receive natural gas from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Gas (SoCalGas), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), Southwest Gas, and several smaller natural gas utilities. The CPUC also regulates independent storage operators: Lodi Gas Storage, Wild Goose Storage, Central Valley Storage and Gill Ranch Storage.

The vast majority of California’s natural gas customers are residential and small commercial customers, referred to as “core” customers, who accounted for approximately 32 percent of the natural gas delivered by California utilities in 2012. Large consumers, like electric generators and industrial customers, referred to as “noncore” customers, accounted for approximately 68 percent of the natural gas delivered by California utilities in 2012.

The CPUC regulates the California utilities’ natural gas rates and natural gas services, including in
‐State transportation over the utilities ’ transmission and distribution pipeline systems, storage, procurement, metering and billing. Most of the natural gas used in California comes from out ‐of‐State natural gas basins. In 2012, California customer s received 35 percent of their natural gas supply from basins located in the Southwest, 16 percent from Canada, 40 percent from the Rocky Mountains, and 9 percent from basins located within California. California gas utilities may soon also begin receiving biogas into their pipeline systems.

Natural gas from out ‐of‐State production basins is delivered into California via the interstate natural gas pipeline system. The major interstate pipelines that deliver out ‐of‐ State natural gas to California consumers are the Gas Transmission Northwest Pipeline, Kern River Pipeline, Transwestern Pipeline, El Paso Pipeline, Ruby Pipeline, Questar Southern Trails and Mojave Pipeline. Another pipeline, the North Baja – Baja Norte Pipeline, takes gas off the El Paso Pipeline at the California/Arizona border, and delivers that gas through California into Mexico. While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates the transportation of natural gas on the interstate pipelines, the CPUC often participates in FERC regulatory proceedings to represent the interests of California natural gas consumers.

Most of the natural gas transported via the interstate pipelines, as well as some of the California
‐produced natural gas, is delivered into the PG&E and SoCalGas intrastate natural gas transmission pipeline systems (commonly referred to as California’s “backbone” natural gas pipeline system). Natural gas on the utilities’ backbone pipeline systems is then delivered into the local transmission and distribution pipeline systems, or PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 6
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Energy

5.6-5
to natural gas storage fields. Some large noncore customers take natural gas directly off the high-pressure backbone pipeline systems, while core customers and other noncore customers take natural gas off the utilities’ distribution pipeline systems. The CPUC has regulatory jurisdiction over 150,000 miles of utility ‐owned natural gas pipelines, which transported 82 percent of the total amount of natural gas delivered to California’ s gas consumers in 2012.

SDG&E and Southwest Gas’ southern division are wholesale customers of SoCalGas, and currently receive all of their natural gas from the SoCalGas system (Southwest Gas also provides natural gas distribution service in the Lake Tahoe area). Some other municipal wholesale customers are the cities of Palo Alto, Long Beach, and Vernon, which are not regulated by the CPUC.

Some of the natural gas delivered to California customers may be delivered directly to them without being transported over the regulated utility systems. For example, the Kern River/Mojave pipeline system can deliver natural gas directly to some large customers, “bypassing” the utilities’ systems. Much of California
‐produced natural gas is also
delivered directly to large consumers.

PG&E and SoCalGas own and operate several natural gas storage fields that are located in northern and southern California. These storage fields, and four independently owned storage utilities – Lodi Gas Storage, Wild Goose Storage, Central Valley Storage, and Gill Ranch Storage – help meet peak seasonal natural gas demand and allow California natural gas customers to secure natural gas supplies more efficiently.

California’s regulated utilities do not own any natural gas production facilities. All of the natural gas sold by these utilities must be purchased from suppliers and/or marketers. The price of natural gas sold by suppliers and marketers was deregulated by the FERC in the mid
‐1980’s and is determined by “market forces.” However, the CPUC decides whether California’s utilities have taken reasonable steps in order to minimize the cost of natural gas purchased on behalf of their core customers.”
As indicated in the preceding discussions, natural gas is available from a vari ety of in‐State and out‐of‐State sources and is provided throughout the State in response to market supply and demand. Complementing available natural gas resources, biogas may soon be available via existing delivery systems, thereby increasing the availability and reliability of resources in total.

The CPUC oversees utility purchases and transmission of natural gas to ensure reliable and affordable natural gas deliveries to existing and new consumers throughout the State.

The Project’s residential units will not use natural gas; natural gas connections for the Project would only be implemented for some Project common use areas/amenities.

Transportation Energy Resources
The Project would generate additional vehicle trips with resulting consumption of energy resources, predominantly gasoline and diesel fuel. In March 2019 , the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) identified 36.4 million registered vehicles in California, and those vehicles (as PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.6 City of Riverside
Energy Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.6-6

noted previously) consume an estimated 17.8 billion gallons of fuel each year. Gasoline (and other vehicle fuels) are commercially provided commodities and would be available to the Project patrons and employees via commercial outlets.

California’s on-road transportation system includes 394,383 land miles, more than 27.5 million passenger vehicles and light trucks, and almost 8.1 million medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.

While gasoline consumption has been declining since 2008, it is still by far the dominant fuel.

Petroleum comprises about 91 percent of all transportation energy use, excluding fuel consumed for aviation and most marine vessels. Nearly 17.8 billion gallons of on -highway fuel are burned each year, including 14.6 billion gallons of gasoline (including ethanol) and 3. 2 billion gallons of diesel fuel (including biodiesel and renewable diesel). In 2019, Californians also used 194 million cubic feet of natural gas as a transportation fuel , or the equivalent of 183 b illion gallons of gasoline.

5.6.2 Related Regulations
Federal and State agencies regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs. On the Federal level, the United States Department of Transportation, the United States Department of Energy, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) are three Federal agencies with substantial influence over energy policies and programs. On the State level, the CPUC and the California Energy Commission (CEC) are two agencies with authority over different aspects of energy. Relevant Federal and State energy ‐related laws and plans are summarized below.

5.6.2.1 Federal Regulations
Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 seeks to reduce reliance on nonrenewable energy resources and provide incentives to reduce current demand on these resources. For example, under the Energy Policy Act, consumers and businesses can obtain Federal tax credits for purchasing fuel-efficient appliances and products (including hybrid vehicles), building energy -efficient buildings, and improving the energy efficiency of commercial buildings. Additionally, tax credits are available for the installation of qualified fuel cells, stationary microturbine power plants, and solar power.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 aims to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security; increase the production of clean renewable fuels; protect consumers; increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles; promote greenhouse gas (GHG) research; improve the energy efficiency of the Federal government; and improve vehicle fuel economy.

5.6.2.2 State Regulations
2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 6
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Energy

5.6-7
The Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) were first adopted by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and have been updated periodically since then, as directed by the statute. The CEC’s statute created separate authority and specific direction regarding what the standards are to address, development criteria, and provided implementation tools, aids, and technical assistance. (CECa 2023)
The Energy Code contains energy and water efficiency requirements (and indoor air quality requirements) for newly constructed buildings, additions to existing buildings, and alterations to existing buildings. Public Resources Code Sections 25402 subdivisions (a) -(b) and 25402.1 emphasize the importance of building design and construction flexibility by requiring the CEC to establish performance standards, in the form of an “energy budget” in terms of the energy consumption per square foot of floor space. For this reason, the Energy Code includes both a prescriptive option, allowing builders to comply by using methods known to be efficient, and a performance option, allowing builders complete freedom in their designs provided the building achieves the same overall efficiency as an equivalent building using the prescriptive option.

Reference Appendices are adopted along with the Energy Code that contain data and other information that helps builders comply.

The Energy Code is conceptually divided into three sets. First, there is a basic set of mandatory requirements that apply to all buildings. Second, there is a set of performance standards – the energy budgets – that vary by climate zone (of which there are 16 in California) and building type; thus, the Energy Code is tailored to local conditions and provides flexibility in how energy efficiency in buildings can be achieved. The third set constitutes an alternative to the performance standards, which is a set of prescriptive packages that provide a recipe or a checklist compliance approach.

Title 24, Part 6
Title 24, Part 6 of the Energy Code provides the Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings. ( CECa 2023) Per Table 100.0- A – Application of Standards, the following sections of building energy efficiency standards would apply to multifamily residential buildings such as the Project:

Section 110.2 – Mandatory Requirements for Space-Conditioning Equipment Section 110.3 – Mandatory Requirements for Service Water-Heating Systems and Equipment Section 110.4 – Mandatory Requirements for Pool and Spa Systems and Equipment Section 110.5 – Natural Gas Central Furnaces, Cooking Equipment, Pool and Spa Heaters, and Fireplaces: Pilot Lights Prohibited
Section 110.6 – Mandatory Requirements for Fenestration Products and Exterior Doors Section 110.7 – Mandatory Requirements to Limit Air Leakage Section 110.8 – Mandatory Requirements for Insulation, Roofing Products, and Radian Barriers Section 110.9 – Mandatory Requirements for Lighting Controls PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.6 City of Riverside
Energy Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.6-8

Section 110.10 – Mandatory Requirements for Solar Readiness Section 110.11 – Mandatory Requirements for Electrical Power Distribution System Section 160.0 – General; Multifamily Buildings – Mandatory Requirements Multifamily buildings shall comply with the applicable requirements of Sections 160.1 through 160.9. Sections 160.1 through 160.9 apply to dwelling units and common use areas in multifamily buildings. The requirements of Sections 160.1 through 160.9 apply to newly constructed buildings. (CECa 2023) Section 160.1 – Mandatory Requirements for Building Envelopes Section 160.2 – Mandatory Requirements for Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Section 160.3 – Mandatory Requirements for Space Conditioning Systems in Multifamily Buildings
Section 160.4 – Mandatory Requirements for Water Heating Systems Section 160.5 – Mandatory Lighting Requirements for Indoor and Outdoor Spaces Section 160.6 – Mandatory Requirements for Electric Power Distribution Systems Section 160.7 – Mandatory Requirements for Covered Processes Section 160.8 – Mandatory Requirements for Solar Ready Buildings Section 160.9 – Mandatory Requirements for Electric Ready Buildings California Green Building Standards
Title 24, Part 11
The California Green Building Standards Code, which is Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations, is commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code. The State updates this code every three (3) years. The first edition of the CALGreen Code was released in 2008 and contained only voluntary standards. The 2019 CALGreen Code was updated in 2019, became effective on January 1, 2020, and applied to non- residential and residential developments. The 2022 CALGreen Code went into effect on January 1, 2023. The CALGreen Code contains requirements for construction site selection, stormwater control during construction, construction waste reduction, indoor water use reduction, material selection, natural resource conservation, site irrigation conservation, and more. The CALGreen Code provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. The CALGreen Code also requires building commissioning, which is a process for the verification that all building systems, such as heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems, function at their maximum efficiency.

Chapter 4 of Title 24, Part 11 provides the Residential Mandatory Measures, including those regarding energy efficiency.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 6
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Energy

5.6-9
California Energy Commission
The CEC is the State’s primary energy policy and planning agency and it plays a critical role in creating a clean and modern energy system. State Bill (SB) 1389 (Chapter 568, Statutes of 2022) requires the CEC to prepare an Integrated Energy Policy Report biennially at a minimum. The report should include a description of the international energy market prospects and an evaluation of its export promotion activities.

SB 1389
In 2002, the Legislature passed SB 1389, which required the CEC to develop an integrated energy plan every two (2) years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels for the California Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental costs.

Integrated Energy Policy Report
As described, SB 1389 requires the CEC to prepare a biennial integrated energy report . The report contains an integrated assessment of major energy trends and issues facing California’s electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors. The report provides policy recommendations to conserve resources; protect the environment; ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies; enhance the State’s economy; and protect public health and safety. (CECa 2023)
The CEC adopted the 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) on February 16, 2022. The 2021 IEPR addresses the following four major topics and includes an analysis of the benefits of transitioning to a clean transportation system:

1. Energy reliability over the next five (5) years;

2. Natural gas outlook and assessments;

3. Building decarbonization and energy efficiency; and

4. Energy demand.

To this end, the 2021 IEPR has four volumes and an appendix consisting of: (1) a report on actions needed to reduce the GHGs related to buildings in which Californians live and work, with an emphasis on energy efficiency and reducing GHGs from the industrial and agricultural sectors; (2) a report on actions needed to increase the reliability and resiliency of California’s energy system; (3) an assessment of the evolving role of gas in California’s energy system, both the importance in near-term reliability and the need for the system to evolve as California works to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045; (4) an assessment of California’s energy demand outlook, including a forecast to 2035 and long- term energy demand scenarios to 2050; and (5) an evaluation of the benefits of California’s Clean Transportation Program. (LSA 2023)

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.6 City of Riverside
Energy Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.6-10

Assembly Bill 2076
Assembly Bill (AB) 2076 (passed in 2000, Shelley, Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000) directs CARB and the CEC to develop and adopt recommendations for the Governor and the Legislature on a strategy to reduce California’s dependence on petroleum.

5.6.2.3 Regional Regulations
There are no regional regulations that relate to energy and this Project.

5.6.2.4 Local Regulations
City of Riverside General Plan 2025
The City’s General Plan 2025 contains objectives and policies that seek to reduce energy use in the City and to provide renewable energy sources. The Open Space and Conservation Element and Public Facilities and Infrastructure Element contain energy conservation items. Objectives and policies that relate to the Project include:

OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Objective OS-8: Encourage the efficient use of energy resources by residential and commercial users.

Policy OS -8.2: Require incorporation of energy conservation features in the design of all new construction and substantial rehabilitation projects pursuant to Title 24 and encourage the installation of conservation devices in existing developments.

Policy OS-8.3: Encourage private energy conservation programs that minimize high energy demand and that use alternative energy sources.

Policy OS-8.4: Incorporate solar considerations into development regulations that allow existing and proposed buildings to use solar facilities.

Policy OS-8.5: Develop landscaping guidelines that support the use of vegetation for shading and wind reduction and otherwise help reduce energy consumption in new development for compatibility with renewable energy sources (i.e., solar pools).

Policy OS -8.6: Require all new development to incorporate energy efficient lighting, heating and cooling systems pursuant to the Uniform Building Code and Title 24.

Policy OS-8.7: Encourage mixed-use development as a means of reducing the need for auto travel.

Policy OS-8.9: Encourage construction and subdivision design that allows the use of solar energy systems.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 6
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Energy

5.6-11
Policy OS -8.10: Support the use of public transportation, bicycling and other alternative transportation modes in order to reduce the consumption of nonrenewable energy supplies.

Policy OS -8.11: Support public education programs for City residents and businesses to provide information on energy conservation and on alternatives to nonrenewable energy resources.

Policy OS-8.12: Require bicycle parking in new nonresidential development.

PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT
Objective PF-6: Provide affordable, reliable, and, to the extent practical, environmentally sensitive energy resources to residents and businesses.

Policy PF-6.3: Promote and encourage energy conservation.

Policy PF -6.4: Encourage energy-efficient development through its site plan and building design standard guidelines.

Policy PF-6.5: Promote green building design.

Riverside Restorative Growthprint Climate Action Plan
The City of Riverside collaborated with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) on a Subregional Climate Action Plan (CAP). The Riverside Restorative Growthprint Climate Action Plan (RRG CAP) builds on the WRCOG Subregional CAP commitments and provides the City GHG reduction goals beyond 2020 to 2035. The RRG CAP contains measures that promote energy efficiency and renewable energy for municipal operations and the community.

Riverside Public Utilities Integrated Resource Plan
Riverside Public Utilities’ (RPU) 2018 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) provides an impact analysis of Riverside’s acquisition of new power resources, specifically towards meeting the State’s aggressive carbon reduction goals, along with the effect these resources will have on the utility’s future projected cost of service.

Both current and proposed supply -side and demand-si de resources are examined in detail towards the goal of continuing to provide the highest quality electric services at the lowest possible rates to benefit the local community, while adhering to a diverse set of State and regional legislative/regulatory mandates. Additionally, the 2018 IRP examines a number of related longer range planning activities, including energy storage, rate design, transportation electrification, distributed energy sources, and RPU’s current and future planned engagement with disadvantaged communities.

Both intermediate term (5-year forward) and longer term (20-year forward) resource portfolio and energy market issues are reviewed and analyzed in the 2018 IRP, along with the related longer range planning activities mentioned above.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.6 City of Riverside
Energy Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.6-12

5.6.3 Project Design Considerations
The Project would adhere to applicable California Code Title 24, Part 6 energy efficiency standards as described in Section 5.6.2.2 above.

5.6.4 Thresholds of Significance
The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City generally utilizes the CEQA significance thresholds in Appendix G (“Environmental Checklist”) of the State CEQA Guidelines. According to the Appendix G significance thresholds, impacts related to the Mission Grove Apartments Project may be considered potentially significant if the Project would:
 (Threshold A) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wast eful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or
 (Threshold B) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

In addition, Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the means of achieving the goal of energy conservation includes the following:
 (Threshold C)
o Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption;
o Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil; and o Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.

5.6.5 Environmental Impacts
Threshold A: Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
The Project would increase the demand for electricity, natural gas, and gasoline compared to the existing condition of the site. The discussion and analysis below is based on data included in the Project’s California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) output, which is included as Attachment C of the Project’s Energy Analysis memorandum. (LSA 2023) Under CEQA, a project would result in a potentially significant environmental impact if the project employed wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. Thus, the following analyzes the Project’s projected construction and operational energy use to evaluate the Project’s consumption of energy resources.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 6
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Energy

5.6-13
Construction Energy Use
The anticipated construction schedule assumes that the Project would be built over approximately 28 months. The Project would require demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving during construction.

Construction of the Project would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials and for preparation of the site for grading activities and building cons truction.

Petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) would be the primary sources of energy for these activities. Table 5.6-3 shows the diesel fuel usage based on CalEEMod modeling assumptions.

Table 5.6-3 – Construction Fuel Usage
Phase Name Fuel Used (gal)
Demolition 4,091
Site Preparation 1,950
Grading 3,978
Building Construction & Architectural Coatings 2,993
Paving 1,894
Total Construction Fuel Used 14,906
Sources: Compiled by LSA. CalEEMod modeling and EMFAC2021 (August 2023)

In 2019, vehicles in California consumed approximately 3.8 billion gallons of diesel fuel . (LSA 2023) Therefore, diesel demand generated by construction of the proposed Project would be a minimal fraction of diesel fuel consumption in California and, by extension, Riverside County.

Construction activities are not anticipated to result in an inefficient use of energy because gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors who would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs on the Project. Additionally, the Project would consist of an infill redevelopment project that would not require construction methods that would result in energy use that would exceed that of standard construction practices.

Energy usage on the Project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources. Therefore, construction energy impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

Operational Energy Use
Energy use includes both direct and indirect sources of emissions. Direct sources of emissions include on-site natural gas usage for heating of common areas/amenities, while indirect sources of emissions include electricity generated by off-site power plants. The Project would incorporate all-electric appliances within the residential unit s; the units would not include any natural gas connections or use propane or other fossil fuels. Use of natural gas connections would be limited to some Project common use areas/amenities.

Natural gas use in CalEEMod is measured in units of a thousand British thermal units (kBTU) per year; however, the Project’s Energy Analysis converts the results to natural gas in units of therms PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.6 City of Riverside
Energy Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.6-14

to be consistent with State natural gas usage data. Electricity use in CalEEMod is measured in kilowatt hours (kWh) per year, the same as State electricity usage data.

CalEEMod divides building electricity use into uses that are subject to Title 24 standards and those that are not. For electricity, Title 24 uses include the major building envelope systems covered by Part 6 (California Energy Code) of Title 24 (e.g., space heating, space cooling, water heating, and ventilation). Non- Title 24 uses include all other end uses (e.g., appliances, electronics, and other miscellaneous plug-in uses). Because some lighting is not considered as part of the building envelope energy budget, CalEEMod considers lighting as a separate electricity use category.

For natural gas, uses are likewise categorized as Title 24 or non- Title 24. Title 24 uses include building heating and hot water end uses. Non-Title 24 natural gas uses include appliances.

Table 5.6 -4 below provides the estimated potential increased electricity, gasoline, and diesel demand associated with the Project. The electricity rates are from the CalEEMod analysis, while the gasoline and diesel rates are based on the traffic analysis in conjunction with U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) fuel efficiency data.

Table 5.6-4 – Estimated Annual Energy Use of the Project Land Use Electricity
(kWh/yr)
Natural Gas Use
(kBTU/yr)
Gasoline (gal/yr) Diesel (gal/yr)
Residential 688,228 473,806 176,738 126,865
Source: Compiled by LSA (August 2023)
gal/yr = gallons per year
kWh/yr = kilowatt-hours per year

As shown in Table 5.6-4, the estimated annual electricity demand associated with the Project is 688,228 kWh per year, and the proposed the photovoltaic system (i.e., solar panels) for the project has capacity to generate up to 1,275,500 kWh per year. (LSA 2023) In 2021, the total electricity consumption for both residential and non- residential sectors for all California counties was approximately 277,764,000,000 kWh, of which the residential sector of Riverside County consumed approximately 16,767,235,877 kWh. (CECb 2023) Therefore, the electricity demand associated with the Project, not including the amount generated and offset by solar energy, would be approximately less than 0.01 percent of Riverside County’s total electricity demand.

Table 5.6 -4 additionally shows that the estimated potential increased natural gas demand associated with the Project is 4, 473,806 kBTU per year, or 49,738 therms. (LSA 2023) In 2021, California’s total natural gas consumption was 1,192,270,564 therms, while Riverside County consumed 430.8 million therms . (430,843,598 therms; CECc 2023) Therefore, the natural gas demand associated with the Project would be approximately 0.01 percent of Riverside County’s total natural gas demand and would be a minimal increase in the County’s natural gas consumption.

Furthermore, the Project would result in energy usage associated with gasoline and diesel to fuel Project-related trips. The average fuel economy for light -duty vehicles (automobiles, pickups, PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 6
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Energy

5.6-15
vans, and sport utility vehicles) in the United States has steadily increased, from about 14.9 mpg in 1980 to 22.9 mpg in 2020. (LSA 2023) The average fuel economy for heavy-duty trucks in the United States has also steadily increased, from 5.7 mpg in 2013 to a projected 8.0 mpg in 2022. (LSA 2023)
Using the USEPA gasoline fuel economy estimates for 2020, the California diesel fuel economy estimates for 2021, and the traffic data from the Project traffic analyses, the Project would result in the annual consumption of 176,738 gallons of gasoline and 126,865 gallons of diesel fuel. In 2019, vehicles in California consumed approximately 15.6 billion gallons of gasoline and 3.8 billion gallons of diesel fuel. (LSA 2023 ) Therefore, gasoline and diesel demand generated by vehicle trips associated with the Project would be a minimal fraction of gasoline and diesel fuel consumption in California and, by extension, in Riverside County.

In addition, vehicles associated with trips to and from the Project site would be subject to fuel economy and efficiency standards, which are applicable throughout the State. These statistics do not include the increasing use of electric vehicles. As such, the fuel efficiency of vehicles associated with Project operations would increase throughout the life of the Project. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in a substantial increase in transportation- related energy uses.

As supported by the preceding analyses, Project operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Further, the energy demands of the Project can be accommodated within the context of available resources and energy delivery systems. The Project does not require upgrades to off-site RPU transmission facilities and does not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing facilities off-site. The Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold B: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The Project’s consistency with the applicable state and local plans is discussed below.

Consistency with 2021 IEPR
As indicated above, energy usage on the Project site during construction would be temporary in nature. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the P roject would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources and energy impacts would be negligible at the regional level. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level and because the Project’s total impacts to regional energy supplies would be minor, the P roject would not conflict with California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC’s 2021 IEPR. In addition, the P roject would comply with applicable 2022 Title 24 and CALGreen standards, which would ensure the Project would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the goals presented in the 2021 IEPR.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.6 City of Riverside
Energy Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.6-16

Consistency with 2018 IRP
Electricity would be provided to the Project by RPU. RPU’s 2018 IRP builds on existing State programs and policies. As such, the Project is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct, implementation of the goals presented in the 2018 IRP.

Additionally, the Project will comply with the applicable Title 24 standards which would ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. As such, development of the Project would support the goals presented in the 2018 IRP.

Consistency with RRG CAP
The Project would implement energy-saving features and operational programs, consistent with the reduction measures set forth in the RRG CAP. For example, RRG-CAP Section 4.3 – Energy Efficiency provides a number of energy efficiency related measures that would result in emission reductions within Riverside County. Among the measures is R1 -EE1: California Building Code Title 24. As previously discussed, the Project would be required to comply with all applicable Title 24 Building Code standards for multifamily residential buildings, such as providing EV charging stations and implementing solar panels. The Project’s inclusion of solar panels would additionally include the implementation of RRG -CAP measure R2 -CE1 – Clean Energy, which states that installing solar photovoltaic panels on residential building rooftops is an effective way to produce renewable energy on site.

Therefore, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and potential impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold C: Would the Project achieve the goal of energy conservation by the following:
o Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption;
o Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil; and o Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources?
As previously stated, the proposed Project is subject to California Building Code requirements.

New buildings must achieve compliance with 2022 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and the 2022 California Green Building Standards requirements.

Per Section 4.106.4.2 of the 2022 Title 24, Part 11 CALGreen standards, new multifamily dwellings such as the Project and new residential parking facilities must comply with 2022 CALGreen standards to facilitate future installation and use of EV chargers and electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). Additionally, the Project would comply with the 2023 California Building Code and utilize all-electric appliances within the Project’s residential units. The residential units would not use natural gas connections, propane, or other fossil fuels; rather, natural gas connections would only be used for common space areas/amenities. In addition, the Project would implement photovoltaic solar power.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5. 6
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Energy

5.6-17
On this basis, the Project would decrease overall per capita energy consumption; decrease reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil; and increase reliance on renewable energy sources. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.

5.6.6 Proposed Mitigation Measures
The Project does not exceed any of the e nergy thresholds of significance and potential Project - related impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no energy-related mitigation measures have been proposed for the Project.

5.6.7 Cumulative Environmental Effects
As described, no mitigation measures have been proposed for the Project as the Project would not exceed energy thresholds of significance. Energy consumed by the Project is calculated to be comparable to, or less than, energy consumed by other residential, commercial, and recreational uses of similar scale and intensity that are constructed and operating in the State. Further, the energy demands of the Project can be accommodated within the context of available resources and energy delivery systems; thus, the Project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California and does not conflict with or obstruct applicable State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Potential impacts to energy from the proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

As discussed in Chapter 4 Environmental Setting of this EIR, cumulative development in the City and surrounding cities and county would include residential development, warehouses, commercial, office, mixed-use and public facilities (parks). Each of the proposed developments would increase the consumption of energy and energy demand in the region. Energy consumption by the cumulative projects would be regulated by Energy Efficiency Standards embodied in Title 24 of the California Building Code, which apply to new construction of both residential and non - residential buildings, and indirect energy reduction measures from GHG reduction policies.

Therefore, the cumulative projects would not result in the wasteful use of energy.

The City of Riv erside has a number of green power projects that would reduce overall energy consumption in the City. The City is funding various solar projects throughout the City that will reduce energy use from current users and from ongoing, cumulative projects in the City.

Additionally, RPU has a number of incentive programs for residences and businesses to reduce their electricity consumption which will result in cumulatively reducing GHG emissions from energy use.

Further, the cumulative projects in the area would c onsume a fraction of the energy supplies provided by RPU and have an insignificant demand on the State’s overall energy supply.

Therefore, RPU would have adequate supplies and the cumulative projects would not place a significant demand on the suppliers. Potential cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.6 City of Riverside
Energy Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.6-18

5.6.8 References
The following references were used in the preparation of this section of the DEIR:

CEC 2023 California Energy Commission. 2021 Total System Electric Generation.

Accessed January 2023.

CECa 2023
California Energy Commission. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings
: For the 2022 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6, and Associated Administrative Regulations in Part 1. Accessed January 2023.

CECb 2023 California Energy Commission. Electricity Consumption by County. Accessed January 2023.

CECc 2023 California Energy Commission. Gas Consumption by County . Accessed August 2023.

EIA 2023 U.S. Energy Information Administration. State Profile and Energy Estimates .

Accessed January 2023.

LSA 2023
LSA Associates, Inc. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Impact Analysis Memorandum for the Proposed Mission Grove Apartments Project. August 2023. (Appendix B)

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.7
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Geology and Soils

5.7-1

5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
This section analyzes the Project’s potential impacts related to geology and soils. The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the June 2022 Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation Report and the March 2023 Grading Plan Review and Geotechnical Update, both prepared by Geocon West, Inc. (included as Appendix E) and the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by LSA April 2023 (included as Appendix D).

5.7.1 Setting
Geology and Soils
The subject site is located within a seismically active region near the margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The property is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province which is bounded on the north by the Cucamonga and Sierra Madre faults along the Transverse Ranges, the east by the San Jacinto Fault and the Colorado Desert Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Ranges extend west off the coast of California and south to the tip of Baja California. Specifically, the site is located on a Perris Erosion Surface in the Woodcrest area of Riverside. The major faults within the region that are closest to the Project site include the San Jacinto Valley (Casa Loma and Claremont branches) and San Bernardino segments of the San Jacinto fault, and the Glen Ivy and Wildomar segments of the Elsinore fault.

The Project site itself is set in an area of Cretac eous-aged, Val Verde Tonalite occurring at the near surface. (Geocon 2022)
The property consists of a former K-mart store with asphalt drive aisles and parking spaces, landscaped medians, and landscaped lawn areas between the former K-mart and the roadways to the east and south. The subject site is bounded on the north and west by the active Mission Grove Shopping Center, on the east by Mission Grove Parkway, and on the south by Mission Village Drive. Aerial photographs taken in 1974 show a gently sloping erosion plain was present at the site prior to development (which occurred in 1991). The existing elevations range from approximately 1,588 feet above mean sea level ( msl) to the west to 1,598 feet above msl to the east. (Geocon 2022)
Geologic and Soils Conditions
Field investigations were conducted in May 2022 and included the drilling of seven geotechnical borings to depths between 15 feet, 2 inches, and 26 feet, 3 inches and six percolation test borings to depths between 2 and 4½ feet below the existing ground surface. The purpose was to observe the subsurface geological and groundwater conditions at the site, and to collect undisturbed and disturbed samples for laboratory testing. Work included performing percolation tests at the proposed infiltration basin locations as indicated by the project civil engineer . Laboratory tests were performed on select soil samples obtained to evaluate the physical and chemical soil properties for use in engineering analysis. (Geocon 2022) Site geologic materials encountered consist of asphalt pavement over aggregate base and previously placed artificial fill to depths of 0 to 2½ feet overlying quartz diorite bedrock. Subsurface soils present on the Project site have been categized into three (3) units; the soil and geologic units encountered at the site are discussed below.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.7 City of Riverside
Geology and Soils Mission Grove Apartments DEIR

5.7-2

1. Unit 1, Asphaltic Concrete Pavement and Aggregate Base: Asphalt and aggregate base were measured at thicknesses of 3 to 6 inches of asphalt over 4 to 8 inches of aggregate base.

2. Unit 2, Previously Placed Fill: Previously placed fill was encountered to depths of 0 to 2.5 feet. The fill, as encountered, consists of poorly graded to silty sand which is brown to red brown, moist, and medium dense. Deeper fill is likely present beneath the building due to the common practice of over excavating bedrock to create a fill pad on which to perform construction of buildings. This fill was likely placed during grading for the shopping center.

3. Unit 3, Quartz Diorite (qdi): Quartz diorite was encountered below the pavement sections and previously placed fill and underlies the site at depth. The bedrock consists of white and black granitic rock with oxidized zones of brown. It excavated as well -graded sand.

The rock is moderately strong and highly to moderately weathered and moist to wet.

Refusal was not encountered during drilling to depths of up to 26 feet 3 inches. However, core stones and zones of hard r ock are common in granitic bedrock and construction operations may need to implement breaking and industry standard methods for difficult excavations. (Geocon 2022 and 2023)
Groundwater
Perched groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 11.5 to 16.5 feet throughout the Project site. The perched water is likely the result of surficial infiltration in the vicinity of the site moving through the subsurface above the impenetrable bedrock below. The California Department of Water Resources does not show any wells located within several miles of the Project site. (Geocon 2022)
Geologic Hazards
Faulting and Surface Rupture
The numerous faults in southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults.

The criteria for these major groups are based on criteria developed by the California Geological Survey (CGS) for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Program. By definition, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,700 years). A potentially active fault has demonstrated surface displacement during Quaternary time (approximately the last 1.6 million years) but has had no known Holocene movement. Faults that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive. (Geocon 2022) The site is not within a currently established State of California Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or a Riverside County Fault Hazard Zone for surface fault rupture hazards. No active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the site. (Geocon 2022)
The closest surface traces of an active faults to the site are the Glen Ivy North branch of the Elsinore Fault Zone and the San Jacinto Valley segment of the San Jacinto Fault, both located 12 miles from the site to the southwest and northeast, respectively. (Geocon 2022) As with all of Southern California, the Project site is located in a seismically active area and is at risk for moderate-to-severe ground shaking in response to large- magnitude earthquakes during the lifetime of the planned development.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.7
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Geology and Soils

5.7-3
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in- situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations. Seismically induced “dry-sand” settlement may occur whether the potential for liquefaction exists or not.

Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below the water table are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium-grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the requisite soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level to induce liquefaction.

The site is underlain at shallow depths by granitic bedrock; therefore, the potential for liquefaction induced settlement or seismic “dry-sand” settlement to occur beneath the site is considered low. (Geocon 2022)
Expansive Soil
The onsite soils encountered include sands and decomposed granitic rock. Clay develops as granitic rock weathers; therefore, we would also expect some clay to be present within the soils at the site. Laboratory testing result indicates a sample of the near surface soil exhibits a “very low” expansion potential (expansion index [EI] of 20 or less) with test results showing an expansion index of 0. (Geocon 2022)
Landslide
Landslide describes downslope displacement of a mass of rock, soil, and/or debris by sliding, flowing, or falling. Such mass earth movements may be greater than about 10 feet thick and larger than 300 feet across. Landslides typically may include cohesive block glides and disrupted slumps that are formed by translation or rotation of the slope materials along one or more slip surfaces.

These mass displacements can also include more narrowly confined modes such as rock topples, ‘mud flows,’ and ‘debris flows.’ The causes of classic landslides start with a preexisting condition - characteristically, a plane of weak soil or rock - inherent within the rock or soil mass. Thereafter, movement may be precipitated by earthquakes, wet weather, and changes to the structure or loading conditions on a slope (e.g., by erosion, cutting, filling, release of water from broken pipes, etc.).

Landslides are not mapped on or near the site. Due to the relatively level topography at the site, landslides are not present at the property or at a location that landslides could impact the subject site. (Geocon 2022)
Hydrocompression
Hydrocompression is the tendency of unsaturated soil structure to collapse upon wetting resulting in the overall settlement of the affected soil and overlying foundations or improvements supported thereon. Potentially compressible soils underlying the site are typically removed and recompacted PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.7 City of Riverside
Geology and Soils Mission Grove Apartments DEIR

5.7-4
during remedial site grading. However, if compressible soil is left in- place, a potential for settlement due to hydrocompression of the soil exists.

Remedial grading will remove and reprocess the site soils resulting in compacted fill overlying granitic bedrock. Therefore, hydrocompression is not a design consideration for this site. (Geocon 2022)
Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains or impressions of plants and animals, including vertebrates (animals with backbones; mammals, birds, fish, etc.), invertebrates (animals without backbones; starfish, clams, coral, etc.), and microscopic plants and animals (microfossils).

They are valuable, non-renewable, scientific resources used to document the existence of extinct life forms and to reconstruct the environments in which they lived. Fossils can be used to determine the relative ages of the depositional layers in which they occur and of the geologic events that created those deposits. The age, abundance, and distribution of fossils depend on the geologic formation in which they occur and the topography of the area in w hich they are exposed. The geologic environments within which the plants or animals became fossilized usually were quite different from the present environments in which the geologic formations now exist.

The City of Riverside General Plan 2025 Program Environmental Impact Report (GP 2025 PEIR), Section 5 -5 Cultural Resources, identifies two areas within the GP planning area that are considered places of paleontological importance, along the banks of the Santa Ana River (near the historic Campbell’s Sand Pit) and Mockingbird Canyon Reservoir. The Project site is over 5 miles away from both of these areas. The Project site was previously disturbed from grading activities for development of the site in 1991 to construct the shopping center.

5.7.2 Related Regulations

5.7.2.1 Federal Regulations
International Building Code
The International Building Code (IBC) is published by the International Code Council. The scope of this code covers major aspects of construction and design of structures and buildings. The IBC has replaced the Uniform Building Code as the basis for the California Building Code and contains provisions for structural engineering design. The 2021 IBC addresses the design and installation of structures and building systems through requirements that emphasize performance. The IBC includes codes governing structural as well as fire and life safety provisions covering s eismic, wind, accessibility, egress, occupancy, and roofs.

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
U.S. Congress passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act in 1977 to reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards reduction program. To accomplish this goal, the act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. This program was substantially amended in November 1990 by the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Act, which refined the description PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.7
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Geology and Soils

5.7-5
of agency responsibilities, program goals, and objectives to focus on minimizing loss from earthquakes after they occur. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program promotes the adoption of earthquake hazard reduction activities by all scales of government and works to develop national building standards and model codes for use by engineers, architects, and all others involved in the planning and construction of buildings and infrastructure.

5.7.2.2 State Regulations
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 (Alquist -Priolo Act; Public Resources Code Section 2621- 2630) was passed into law following the destructive February 9, 1971 San Fernando earthquake that had a magnitude of 6.6. The Alquist-Priolo Act provides a mechanism for reducing losses from surface fault rupture on a statewide basis. The intent of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to ensure public safety by prohibiting the siting of most structures from human occupancy across traces of active faults that constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. Generally, siting of structures for human occupancy must be set back from the fault by approximately 50 feet. Therefore, if a project site is located in an Earthquake Fault Zone, the City must withhold development permits for sites within the fault zones until geologic investigations demonstrate that the sites are not threatened by surface displacement from future faulting.

Seismic Safety Act
The California Seismic Safety Commission was established by the Seismic Safety Act in 1975 with the intent of providing oversight, review, and recommendations to the Governor and State Legislature regarding seismic issues. The Commission’s name was changed to Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission in 2006. Since then, the Commission has prepared several documents based on recorded earthquakes, such as the 1994 Northridge earthquake, 1933 Long Beach earthquake, and the 1971 Sylmar earthquake. Some of these documents are listed as follows:
• Research and Implementation Plan for Earthquake Risk Reduction in California 1995 to 2000, report dated December 1994
• Seismic Safety in California’s Schools, 2004, “Findings and Recommendations on Seismic Safety Policies and Requirements for Public, Private, and Charter Schools,” report dated December 1994

• Findings and Recommendations on Hospital Seismic Safety, report dated November 2001 • Commercial Property Owner’s Guide to Earthquakes Safety, report dated October 2006 • California Earthquake Loss Reduction Plan 2007–2011, report dated July 2007 Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 was enacted, in part, to address seismic hazards not included in the Alquist -Priolo Act, including strong ground shaking, landslides, and liquefaction.

Under this Act, the State Geologist is assigned the responsibility of identifying and mapping seismic hazards. The California Geological Survey (CGS) Special Publication 117A, adopted in 1997, and Revised and Re-adopted in 2008 by the State Mining and Geology Board, constitutes PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.7 City of Riverside
Geology and Soils Mission Grove Apartments DEIR

5.7-6
guidelines for evaluating seismic hazards other than surface faulting, and for recommending mitigation measures as required by Public Resources Code Section 2695(a). In accordance with the mapping criteria, the CGS seismic hazard zone maps identify areas with the potential for a ground shaking event that corresponds to 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years.

The purpose of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act is to reduce the threat to public health and safety and to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards.

Cities, counties, and State agencies are directed to use seismic hazard zone maps developed by CGS in their land- use planning and permitting processes. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires site- specific geotechnical investigations prior to permitting most urban development projects in seismic hazard zones.

California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2, provides building codes and standards for the design and construction of structures in California. The purpose of the CBC is to establish minimum standards to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, and general stability by controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of building and structures.

The CBC contains specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, ret aining walls, and site demolition. It also regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. Chapter 16 of the CBC contains definitions of seismic sources and the procedure used to calculate seismic forces on structures.

The CBC is updated every three years by order of the legislature, with supplements published in intervening years. State Law mandates that local government enforce the CBC. In addition, a city and/or county may establish more restrictive building standards reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.

Natural Hazards Disclosure Act
The Natural Hazards Disclosure Act, as codified in California Civil Code Section 1103- 1103.14, requires real estate sellers and brokers to prepare Natural Hazards Disclosure Statements upon transfer of real property if such property is located within a number of Federally or State-mapped natural hazard areas. Hazard areas covered under the disclosure form include special flood hazard areas, areas of potential flooding due to dam failure inundation, fire hazard severity zones, wildland areas, earthquake fault zones, and seismic hazard zones. The natural hazard areas most relevant to geology and soils are earthquake fault zones and seismic hazard zones. As discussed above, the Project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The Federal government administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which regulates discharges into surface waters under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The primary regulatory control relevant to the protection of water quality is the NPDES permit administered by the State Water Resources Control Board, which establishes requirements prescribing the quality of point sources of discharge and water quality objectives.

These objectives are established based on the designated beneficial uses (e.g. water supply, PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.7
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Geology and Soils

5.7-7
recreation, and habitat) for a particular surface waterbody. The NPDES permits are issued to point source dischargers of pollutants to surface waters pursuant to Water Code Chapter 5.5, which implements the Federal CWA. Examples include, but are not limited to, public wastewater treatment facilities, industries, power plants, and groundwater cleanup programs discharging to surface waters (State Water Resources Control, Title 23, Chapter 9, Section 2200). The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) establishes and regulates discharge limits under the NPDES permits.

Construction projects which disturb one or more acres of soil or are part of a larger common plan of development that disturbs one or more acres of soil must obtain coverage under the statewide NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009- 0009-DWQ). In order to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, a project -specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared. The SWPPP outlines Best Management Practices to reduce stormwater and non-stormwater pollutant discharges, including erosion control, minimizing contact between construction materials and precipitation, and strategies to prevent equipment leakage or spills.

Public Resources Code
PRC Section 5097.5 addresses Paleontological Resources, stating that:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

In this PRC section, “public lands” means those owned by or under the jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Consequent ly, local agencies are required to comply with PRC 5097.5 for activities that include construction, maintenance, and permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others.

5.7.2.3 Regional Regulations
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
The City of Riverside is located within the Santa Ana River Basin which is under the jurisdiction of RWQCB Region 8, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). The SARWQCB provides permits for projects that may affect surface waters and groundwater locally and is responsible for preparing the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of water in the region and establishes narrative and numerical water quality objectives. The Basin Plan serves as the basis for the SARWQCB’s regulatory programs and incorporates an implementation plan to ensure water quality objectives are met.

5.7.2.4 Local Regulations
Riverside General Plan
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.7 City of Riverside
Geology and Soils Mission Grove Apartments DEIR

5.7-8
The Public Safety Element of the City’s General Plan 2025 contains objectives and policies that seek to reduce hazards that pose a risk to residents, including geologic hazards (City of Riverside 2007). The project would be subject to the following objectives and policies:

Objective PS-1: Minimize the potential damage to existing and new structures and loss of life that may result from geologic and seismic hazards.

Policy PS-1.1: Ensure that all new development in the City abides by the most recently adopted City and State seismic and geotechnical requirements.

Objective PS-9: Minimize the effects from natural and urban disasters by providing adequate levels of emergency response services to all residents in Riverside.

Policy PS-9.8: Reduce the risk to the community from hazards related to geologic conditions, seismic activity, flooding and structural and wildland fires by requiring feasible mitigation of such impacts on discretionary development projects.

Riverside Municipal Code
Title 14- Public Utilities
The Riverside Municipal Code (RMC) contains a number of ordinances relevant to geology and soils. Title 14 addresses the City’s public utilities infrastructure. Section 14.08.030 requires anyone desiring to obtain a building permit for a new house or structure to connect to the public sewer system when the property on which such house or structure is situated is not more than 160 feet from the public sewer and the right -of-way admits such connection, or if the house or structure is located within an area where the use of a septic tank poses a potential contamination risk to the City's drinking water wells in the area, as specified by resolution of City Council.

Title 17-Grading Code
Title 17 of the RMC contains the City’s grading ordinance, which establishes procedures for grading plan approval, issuance of grading permits, and subsequent inspection and enforcement protocols.

With a few exceptions detailed in Section 17.12.010, the grading ordinance prohibits grading on any lot, parcel, or tract of land without issuance of a grading permit from the City’s Public Works Director. Materials required as part of a grading permit application include grading plans, interim erosion control plans, and a preliminary soils report prepared by a geotechnical engineer.

Pursuant to Section 17.16.010(B), recommendations specified in the preliminary soils report must be incorporated into the design of the grading plan. Additionally, the grading permit application incorporates the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit, such as preparation of a SWPPP, and requires documentation of water quality best management practices required under the Riverside County Drainage Area Management Plan.

Section 17.28.010 contains minimum grading standards and general requirements, including standards for cuts, fills, retaining walls, setbacks, drainage and terracing, and excavation blasting.

Additionally, the grading ordinance establishes supplementary regulations for grading in hillsides PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.7
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Geology and Soils

5.7-9
and arroyos. The Project site is not located in a hillside or arroyo grading area, as delineated in Exhibits A-F of the grading ordinance.

5.7.3 Project Design Considerations
Project design considerations are outlined in the 2022 geotechnical investigation reports prepared by Geocon West, Inc. (included as Appendix E). All recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation Report will be City issued project conditions of approval , and include excavation, grading, backfill, seismic design criteria, foundations, retaining walls, elevator design, swimming pool design, lateral loading, and pavement recommendations.

5.7.4 Thresholds of Significance
The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City generally utilizes the CEQA significance thresholds in Appendix G (“Environmental Checklist”) of the State CEQA Guidelines. According to the Appendix G significance thresholds, impacts related to the Mission Grove Apartments Project may be considered potentially significant if the Project would:
• (Threshold A) expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
 i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42;
 ii) strong seismic ground shaking;
 iii) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction;  iv) landslides;
• (Threshold B) result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; • (Threshold C) be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
• (Threshold D) be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property; • (Threshold E) have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water;
• (Threshold F) directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.7 City of Riverside
Geology and Soils Mission Grove Apartments DEIR

5.7-10

5.7.5 Environmental Impacts
Threshold A: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; ii) s trong seismic ground shaking; iii) s eismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction; and/or iv) landslides? i) Faulting and Surface Rupture
Unlike damage from ground shaking, which can occur at great distances from the fault, impacts from fault rupture are limited to the immediate area of the fault zone where the fault breaks along the surface. The Project site does not lie within or adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no faults were identified on the site during site evaluations. Additionally, per the City’s General Plan 2025 PEIR there are no faults lines or fault zones within the City of Riverside boundaries. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the site. The closest known active faults are associated with the San Bernardino Valley section of the San Jacinto Fault, located approximately 12 miles northeast of the Project site, and the Glen Ivy section of the Elsinore Fault Zone, located approximately 12 miles southwest of the Project site . Thus, the potential for damage due to fault rupture is considered remote. Even so, the Project is required to comply with the building design standards of the California Building Code (CBC) for construction of new buildings related to seismicity .

Therefore, the potential hazards associated with fault rupture are considered less than significant.
ii) Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
The Project site is located within the seismically active region of Southern California and may be subject to ground-shaking events. While no known active faults traverse the City, several faults in the region have the potential to produce seismic impacts within the City. As mentioned above, the two significant faults that are closest to the Project site are the Jacinto and Lake Elsinore Faults.

Also, the Project will be designed to resist seismic impacts in accordance with the applicable Municipal Code Title 16- Buildlings and Construction standards. Such building code compliance is required for development of all structures in the City. Project plans will be reviewed during the plan check process to confirm seismic safety measures and the structural engineer ’s seismic design considerations are incorporated. Moreover, there is nothing unique about the Project site that would require additional measures beyond compliance with the adopted building code and the structural engineer’s seismic design considerations. Therefore, potential impacts associated with seismic ground shaking will be less than significant. iii) Seismic-Related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction The entire Project site is underlain by Cretaceous-aged Val Verde Tonalite, a type of plutonic rock. The site is underlain at shallow depths by granitic bedrock; therefore, the potential for liquefaction induced settlement or seismic “ dry-sand” settlement to occur beneath the site is considered low. Further, per the City’s General Plan 2025 PEIR the Project site is not in an area PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.7
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Geology and Soils

5.7-11
mapped as a liquefaction zone. Therefore, potential impacts associated with seismic ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant. iv) Landslides
Seismically induced landslides and other slope failures are common occurrences during or soon after earthquakes. The susceptibility of a geologic unit to landslides is dependent upon vari ous factors, primarily: 1) the presence and orientation of weak structures, such as fractures, faults, and joints; 2) the height and steepness of the pertinent natural or cut slope; 3) the presence and quality of groundwater; and 4) the occurrence of strong seismic shaking.

Strong ground shaking can also worsen existing unstable slope conditions. Per the City’s General Plan 2025 PEIR, the Project site is located in an area with 0 -10% slopes. The Project site has relatively flat topography as it was graded and developed as a commercial retail store with associated parking. Furthermore, as discussed in threshold A i) and ii) above, there are no active faults on the Project site and the possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the site. The closest known active fault is the San Jacinto Fault approximately 12 miles northeast from the Project site.

As outlined in the geotechnical report prepared for the project , landslides are not mapped on or near the site and due to the relatively level topography at the site landslides are not present at the property or at a location that could impact the project site. Potential impacts associated with seismically inducted landslides would be less than significant.

Threshold B: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? In order to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit, a Project-specific SWPPP must be prepared. The SWPPP would outline Best Management Practices, including erosion control measures during construction, for the proposed Project . The stormwater management measures identified in the SWPPP will be implemented to effectively control erosion and sedimentation for the duration of construction.

As outlined in the WQMP, the proposed Project includes four biotreatment basins located throughout the site; site runoff in the parking lot and roof runoff will be directed to these proposed Modular Wetlands Biofiltration systems which have been incorporated into the site design to fully address storm water runoff volumes. As outlined in the WQMP, the volume and time of concentration of storm water runoff for the post -development condition is not different from the pre-development condition. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in an increase to the rate or amount of surface runoff from the site, and in turn would not result in substantial erosion or siltation off-site. Potential impacts associated with soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Threshold C: Would the Project b e located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? As outlined in the geotechnical report, the Project site is not susceptible to liquefaction and has a low risk of landslides. The site is underlain at shallow depths by granitic bedrock; therefore, the PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.7 City of Riverside
Geology and Soils Mission Grove Apartments DEIR

5.7-12
potential for liquefaction induced settlement or seismic “dry-sand” settlement to occur beneath the site is considered low.

As outlined in the geotechnical study for the project, hydrocompression is the tendency of unsaturated soil structure to collapse upon wetting resulting in the overall settlement of the affected soil and overlying foundations or improvements supported thereon. Potentially compressible soils underlying the site are typically removed and recompacted during remedial site grading. However, if compressible soil is left in- place, a potential for settlement due to hydrocompression of the soil exists. For the proposed Project, remedial grading would remove and reprocess the site soils , resulting in compacted fill overlying granitic bedrock. Therefore, hydrocompression is not a design consideration for this site, and potential impacts from subsidence and settlement would be less than significant.

Threshold D: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? As outlined in the geotechnical report, expansive soils are clayey soils characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrinking or swelling) due to variations in moisture content, the magnitude of which is related to both clay content and plasticity index. These volume changes can be damaging to structures. Nationally, the annual value of real estate damage caused by expansive soils is exceeded only by that caused by termites. The onsite soils encountered include sands and decomposed granitic rock. Clay develops as granitic rock weathers; therefore, some clay would be expected to be present within the soils at the site.

Laboratory testing result indicates a sample of the near surface soil exhibits a “very low” expansion potential (expansion index [EI] of 20 or less) with test results showing an expansion index of 0. Potential impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant.

Threshold E: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) disposes of waste water for the Project site and surrounding area, and has supplied a Will Serve letter to the Project Applicant. The proposed Project will be served by sewer infrastructure and will not utilize or require septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Therefore, the proposed Project will have no impact.

Threshold F: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The Project site is not located in a paleontological sensitivity area (Riverside County GIS data).

Due to extent of prior disturbances at the Project site and onsite undocumented fill, the Project site is not anticipated to have sensitive paleontological resources or unique geological features . that would be destroyed with project implementation. Project related ground disturbance is not likely to impact significant paleontological resources. Mitigation is not recommended unless a fossil is encountered during grading and other construction activities. If an unanticipated on- site fossil is encountered during construction, implementation of mitigation measure MM GEO-1 is required to ensure potential impacts will be less than significant with mitigation.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.7
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Geology and Soils

5.7-13

5.7.6 Proposed Mitigation Measures
A EIR is required to describe feasible mitigation measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.4). Implementation of the Project requires implementation of the following mitigation measure to ensure potential impacts related to paleontological resources are reduced to less than significant levels.

MM GEO-1: If one or more fossils are discovered during construction, all ground disturbing activities within 50 feet of the area of the find shall be ceased and the applicant shall retain a paleontologist who meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) qualifications standards for the Project Paleontologist to oversee the documentation of the extent and potential significance of the finds as well as recovery efforts. Ground-disturbing activities may resume in the area of the finds at the discretion of the Project Paleontologist. If the fossils are significant per the SVP’s 2010 criteria, then paleontological monitoring shall be conducted on an as -needed basis for further ground-disturbing activities in the Project area.

5.7.7 Cumulative Environmental Effects
As discussed in Chapter 4 Environmental Setting of this DEIR, cumulative development in the City and surrounding cities and county would include residential development, warehouses, commercial, office, mixed-use and public facilities (parks). These planned and pending projects would increase structural development near the Project site, in turn exposing new residents and property to potential risks from seismic hazards or soil instability in the area. Like the Project, all new planned and pending development in the City and adjacent jurisdictions would be subject to current seismic and erosion control standards. Although new development would be exposed to existing geologic and seismic hazards, it would not increase the potential for such hazards to occur. Geologic hazards are site-specific, and individual developments would not create additive impacts that would affect geologic conditions on other sites. Therefore, development of individual projects would not exacerbate existing geologic conditions, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative projects within the City have the potential to impact paleontological resources , the City’s General Plan and General Plan EIR incorporate policies and programs to protect and/or document these resources as part of the City’s development review process and mitigation measures that require preparation of technical studies, and the presence of monitors if necessary.

Therefore, the General Plan EIR concluded that with adherence to and implementation of General Plan policies, mitigation measures, and standard Federal, State, and City regulations, cumulative impacts to historical resources, archaeological resources, and paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation. With implementation of mitigation measure MM GEO-1 the potential for the Project to contribute to a cumulative impact is reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.7 City of Riverside
Geology and Soils Mission Grove Apartments DEIR

5.7-14

5.7.8 References
The following references were used in the preparation of this section of the EIR:

Geocon 2022
Geocon West, Inc. Due Diligence Geotechnical Investigation Report :

Mission Grove Redevelopment 375 East Alessandro Boulevard Riverside, California. June 13, 2022 (Appendix E).

Geocon 2023
Geocon West, Inc. Grading Plan Review and Geotechnical Update: Mission Grove R edevelopment 375 E ast A lessandro B oulevard R iverside, California. March 20, 2023 (Appendix E).

GP 2025
City of Riverside, General Plan 2025, certified November 2007 with subsequent amendments to various elements. (Available at https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/city-plans/general-plan-0, accessed September 15, 2023)
GP 2025 PEIR
City of Riverside, City of Riverside General Plan 2025 Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) (SCH# 2004021108), certified November 2007. (Available at https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/city- plans/general-plan-0, accessed September 15, 2023)
LSA 2023 LSA, Cultural Resources Assessment, Anton Mission Grove Project, Riverside, Riverside County, California. April 2023. (Appendix D) MGSP
City of Riverside, Mission Grove Specific Plan. September 16, 1997. (Available at https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/city-plans/specific-plans- 0, accessed September 2023)
EQ Zapp
EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone A pplication, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (Accessed November 2022)
Southern
California
Earthquake
Data Center
Southern California Earthquake Data Center. 2020. Significant Earthquakes and Faults. [website]:
https://scedc.caltech.edu/significant/index.html. (Accessed November 2022)
Riverside
County GIS
data
County of Riverside Land Information System. n.d. Map My County; Paleontological Sensitivity:
https://gis1.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public (Accessed January 2024)

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.8
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.8-1

5.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Based upon Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, this section evaluates the Project’s impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The analysis in this section is based on data and information in the August 2023 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Impact Analysis Memorandum for the Proposed Mission Grove Apartments Project prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) for the Project (Appendix B of this DEIR).

5.8.1 Setting

5.8.1.1 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Global Climate Change
Earth’s natural warming process is known as the “greenhouse effect.” This greenhouse effect compares the Earth and the atmosphere surrounding it to a greenhouse with glass panes. The glass allows solar radiation (sunlight) into Earth’s atmosphere but prevents radiated heat from escaping, thus warming Earth’s atmosphere. GHGs keep the average surface temperature of the Earth to approximately 60 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). However, excessive concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere can result in increased global mean temperatures, with associated adverse climatic and ecological consequences.

Scientists refer to the global warming context of the past century as the “enhanced greenhouse effect” to distinguish it from the natural greenhouse effect. While the increase in temperature is known as “global warming,” the resulting change in weather patterns is known as “global climate change.” Global climate change (GCC) is evidenced in changes to global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, glacial retreat, decreased snow cover, sea level rise, declining Arctic sea ice, extreme weather events, and ocean acidification.

Higher temperatures, conducive to air pollution formation, could worsen air quality in California.

While climate change may increase the concentration of ground- level ozone, the magnitude of the effect, and therefore, its indirect effects, are uncertain. If higher temperatures are accompanied by drier conditions, the potential for large wildfires could increase, which, in turn, would exacerbate air quality. Additionally, severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat -related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the State. However, if higher temperatures are accompanied by wetter, rather than drier conditions, the rains would temporarily clear the air of particulate pollution and reduce the incidence of large wildfires, thus reducing the pollution associated with wildfires. GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere.

Greenhouse Gases
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as GHGs. GHGs are released into the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic (human) activity. Without the natural GHG effect, the earth’s average temperature would be approximately 61° Fahrenheit cooler than it is currently. The cumulative accumulation of these gases in the earth’s atmosphere is considered PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.8 City of Riverside
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Crestview Apartments Project DEIR

5.8-2
to be the cause for the observed increase in the earth’s temperature. Gases that demonstrate these heat-trapping properties are discussed in Table 5.8-1.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.8
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.8-3
Table 5.8-1 – Greenhouse Gases
H2O
Description
H20 is the most abundant, important, and variable GHG in the atmosphere. H2O vapor is not considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere it maintains a climate necessary for life. Changes in its concentration are primarily considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. A climate feedback is an indirect, or secondary, change, either positive or negative, that occurs within the climate system in response to a forcing mechanism. The feedback loop in which H2O is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change. As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more H2O is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to ‘hold’ more H2O when it is warmer), leading to more H2O vapor in the atmosphere. As a GHG, the higher concentration of H2O vapor is then able to absorb more thermal indirect energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more H2O vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a “positive feedback loop.” The extent to which this positive feedback loop will continue is unknown as there are also dynamics that hold the positive feedback loop in check. As an example, when H2O vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the earth’s surface and heat it up.

Source
The main source of H2O vapor is evaporation from the oceans (approximately 85 percent). Other sources include evaporation from other H2O bodies, sublimation (change from solid to gas) from sea ice and snow, and transpiration from plant leaves.

Health Effects
There are no known direct health effects related to H2O vapor at this time. It should be noted however that when some pollutants react with H2O vapor, the reaction forms a transport mechanism for some of these pollutants to enter the human body through H2O vapor.

CO2
Description
CO2 is an odorless and colorless GHG. Since the industrial revolution began in the mid -1700s, the sort of human activity that increases GHG emissions has increased dramatically in scale and distribution. Data from the past 50 years suggests a corollary increase in levels and concentrations. As an example, prior to the industrial revolution, CO 2 concentrations were fairly stable at
280 parts per million (ppm). Today, they are around 370 ppm, an increase of more than 30 percent. Left unchecked, the concentration of CO
2 in the atmosphere is projected to increase to a minimum of 540 ppm by 2100 as a direct result of anthropogenic sources.

Source
CO2 is emitted from natural and manmade sources. Natural sources include: the decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources include: the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. CO 2 is naturally removed from the air by photosynthesis, dissolution into ocean water, transfer to soils and ice caps, and chemical weathering of carbonate rocks.

Health Effects
Outdoor levels of CO2 are not high enough to result in negative health effects.

According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) high concentrations of CO2 can result in health effects such as: headaches, dizziness, restlessness, difficulty breathing, sweating, increased heart rate, increased cardiac output, increased blood pressure, coma, asphyxia, and/or convulsions. It should be noted that current concentrations of CO 2 in
the earth’s atmosphere are estimated to be approximately 370 ppm, the actual reference exposure level (level at which adverse health effects typically occur) is at exposure levels of 5,000 ppm averaged over 10 hours in a 40-hour workweek and short-term reference exposure levels of 30,000 ppm averaged over a 15 minute period.

CH4
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.8 City of Riverside
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.8-4
Description
CH4 is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, although its atmospheric concentration is less than CO2 and its lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10-12 years), compared to other GHGs.

Source
CH4 has both natural and anthropogenic sources. It is released as part of the biological processes in low oxygen environments, such as in swamplands or in rice production (at the roots of the plants). Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of CH4. Other anthropocentric sources include fossil-fuel combustion and biomass burning.

Health Effects
CH4 is extremely reactive with oxidizers, halogens, and other halogen -containing compounds. Exposure to high levels of CH 4 can cause asphyxiation, loss of consciousness, headache and dizziness, nausea and vomiting, weakness, loss of coordination, and an increased breathing rate.

N2O
Description
N2O, also known as laughing gas, is a colorless GHG. Concentrations of N2O also began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution. In 1998, the global concentration was 314 parts per billion (ppb).

Source
N2O is produced by microbial processes in soil and H 2O, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen.

In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel -fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load. It is used as an aerosol spray propellant, i.e., in whipped cream bottles. It is also used in potato chip bags to keep chips fresh. It is used in rocket engines and in race cars. N2O can be transported into the stratosphere, be deposited on the earth’s surface, and be converted to other compounds by chemical reaction.

Health Effects
N2O can cause dizziness, euphoria, and sometimes slight hallucinations. In small doses, it is considered harmless. However, in some cases, heavy and extended use can cause Olney’s Lesions (brain damage).

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
Description
CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in CH4 or ethane (C2H6) with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms.

CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface).

Source
CFCs have no natural source but were first synthesized in 1928. They were used for refrigerants, aerosol propellants and cleaning solvents. Due to the discovery that they are able to destroy stratospheric ozone, a global effort to halt their production w as undertaken and was extremely successful, so much so that le vels of the major CFCs are now remaining steady or declining.

However, their long atmospheric lifetimes mean that some of the CFCs will remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years.

Health Effects
In confined indoor locations, working with CFC -113 or othe r CFCs is thought to result in death by cardiac arrhythmia (heart frequency too high or too low) or asphyxiation.

HFCs
Description
HFCs are synthetic, man -made chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Out of all the GHGs, they are one of three groups with the highest global warming potential (GWP). The HFCs with the largest measured atmospheric abundances are (in order), HFC-23 (CHF3), HFC-134a (CH2FCF), and HFC -152a (CH3CF2). Prior to 1990, the only significant emissions were of HFC-23. HFC-134a emissions are increasing due to its use as a refrigerant.

Source HFCs are manmade for applications such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants.

Health Effects No health effects are known to result from exposure to HFCs.

PFCs
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.8
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.8-5
Description
PFCs have stable molecular structures and do not break down through chemical processes in the lower atmosphere. High - energy ultraviolet rays, which occur about 60 kilometers above earth’s surface, are able to destroy the compounds. Because of this, PFCs have very long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two common PFCs are tetrafluoromethane (CF 4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6). The EPA estimates that concentrations of CF4 in the atmosphere are over 70 parts per trillion (ppt).

Source The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.

Health Effects No health effects are known to result from exposure to PFCs.

SF6
Description
SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It also has the highest GWP of any gas evaluated (23,900).

The EPA indicates that concentrations in the 1990s were about 4 ppt.

Source
SF6 is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection.

Health Effects
In high concentrations in confined areas, the gas presents the hazard of suffocation because it displaces the oxygen needed for breathing.

Nitrogen Trifluoride (NF3)
Description
NF3 is a colorless gas with a distinctly moldy odor. The World Resources Institute (WRI) indicates that NF3 has a 100-year GWP of 17,200.

Source
NF3 is used in industrial processes and is produced in the manufacturing of semiconductors, LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) panels, types of solar panels, and chemical lasers.

Health Effects Long-term or repeated exposure may affect the liver and kidneys and may cause fluorosis.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.8 City of Riverside
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.8-6
The potential health effects related directly to the emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O as they relate to development projects such as the Project are still being debated in the scientific community .

Their cumulative effects to GCC have the potential to cause adverse effects to human health.

Increases in Earth’s ambient temperatures would result in more intense heat waves, causing more heat-related deaths. Scientists also purport that higher ambient temperatures would decrease disease survival rates among humans who contract the diseases and result in more widespread disease. Climate change will likely cause shifts in weather patterns, potentially resulting in devastating droughts and food shortages in some areas.

Global Warming Potential
GHGs have varying global warming potential ( GWP) values. The GWP of a GHG indicates the amount of warming a gas causes over a given period of time and represents the potential of a gas to trap heat in the atmosphere. CO
2 is utilized as the reference gas for GWP, and thus has a GWP of one ( 1). Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2e) is a term used for describing the different GHGs in a common unit. CO 2e signifies the amount of CO 2 which would have the equivalent GWP.

The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected GHGs are summarized in Table 5.8-2. As shown, GWPs for the Second Assessment Report (SAR), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s scientific and socio-economic assessment on climate change, range from one (1) for CO2 to 23,900 for SF6 and GWPs for the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report range from 1 for CO2 to 23,500 for SF6.

Table 5.8-2 – Global Warming Potential and Atmospheric Lifetimes of Select Gases Gas Atmospheric Lifetime
(years)
Global Warming Potential (100-year time
horizon)
SAR 5th Assessment Report
CO2 See* 1 1
CH4 12 .4 21 28
N2O 121 310 265
HFC-23 222 11,700 12,400
HFC-134a 13.4 1,300 1,300
HFC-152a 1.5 140 138
SF6 3,200 23,900 23,500
*As per Appendix 8.A. of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report, no single lifetime can be given.

Source: Table 2.14 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007

GHG Emissions Inventories
Global
PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.8
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.8-7
Worldwide anthropogenic (human) GHG emissions are tracked by the IPCC for industrialized nations (referred to as Annex I) and developing nations (referred to as Non-Annex I). Human GHG emissions data for Annex I nations are available through 2017. Based on the latest available data, the sum of these emissions totaled approximately 29,216,501 Gg CO2e, as summarized in Table

5.8-3.

Table 5.8-3 – Top GHG Producing Countries and the European Union Emitting Countries GHG Emissions1 (Gg CO2e)
China 11,991,7102
United States 6,456,718
European Union (28-member countries) 4,323,163
India 3,079,8102
Russian Federation 2,155,470
Japan 1,289,630
Total 29,216,501
Gg = gigagram
1The global emissions are the sum of Annex I and non- Annex I countries, without counting Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). For countries without 2017 data, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, “Annex I Parties – GHG total without LULUCF,” was used. 2The most recent GHG emissions for China and India are from 2014.

State of California
California has significantly slowed the rate of growth of GHG emissions due to the implementation of energy efficiency programs as well as adoption of strict emission controls but is still a substantial contributor to the U.S. emissions inventory total . The California Air Resource Board (CARB) compiles GHG inventories for the State of California. Based upon the 2018 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available) for the 2000-2016 GHG emissions period, California emitted an average 429.4 million metric tons of CO 2e (MMTCO2e) per year
including emissions resulting from imported electrical power in 2015.

Effects of Climate Change in California
Public Health
Higher temperatures may increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation could increase from 25 to 35 percent under the lower warming range to 75 to 85 percent under the medium warming range. In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may become impossible to meet local air quality standards. Air quality could be further compromised by increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel long distances, depending on wind conditions. The Climate Scenarios report indicates that large wildfires could become up to 55 percent more frequent if GHG emissions are not significantly reduced.

In addition, under the higher warming range scenario, there could be up to 100 more days per year with temperatures above 90 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in Los Angeles and 95°F in Sacramento by 2100. This is a large increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.8 City of Riverside
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.8-8
projected if temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures could increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat.

Water Resources
A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts captures and transports water throughout the State from northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada snowpack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months.

Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snowpack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages.

If temperatures continue to increase, more precipitation could fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall could melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent. Under the lower warming range scenario, snowpack losses could be only half as large as those possible if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range. How much snowpack could be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of snowpack could pose challenges to water managers and hamper hydropower generation. It could also adversely affect winter tourism. Under the lower warming range, the ski season at lower elevations could be reduced by as much as a month. If temperatures reach the higher warming range and precipitation declines, there might be many years with insufficient snow for skiing and snowboarding.

The State’s water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater could degrade California’s estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern edge of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta – a major fresh water supply.

Agriculture
Increased temperatures could cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. First, California farmers could possibly lose as much as 25 percent of the water supply needed. Although higher CO 2 levels can stimulate
plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency, California’s farmers could face greater water demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise. Crop growth and development could change, as could the intensity and frequency of pest and disease outbreaks.

Rising temperatures could aggravate ozone pollution, which makes plants more susceptible to disease and pests and interferes with plant growth.

Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a threshold. However, faster growth can result in less -than-optimal development for many crops, so rising temperatures could worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California’s agricultural products. Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits and nuts.

In addition, continued GCC could shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and alter competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion could occur in many species while PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.8
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.8-9
range contractions may be less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations already established. Should range contractions occur, new or different weed species could fill the emerging gaps. Continued GCC could alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen pests’ breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates.

Forests and Landscapes
GCC has the potential to intensify the current threat to forests and landscapes by increasing the risk of wildfire a nd altering the distribution and character of natural vegetation. If temperatures rise into the medium warming range, the risk of large wildfires in California could increase by as much as 55 percent, which is almost twice the increase expected if temperatures stay in the lower warming range. However, since wildfire risk is determined by a combination of factors, including precipitation, winds, temperature, and landscape and vegetation conditions, future risks will not be uniform throughout the State. In contrast, wildfires in northern California could increase by up to 90 percent due to decreased precipitation.

Moreover, continued GCC has the potential to alter natural ecosystems and biological diversity within the State. For example, alpine and subalpine ecosystems could decline by as much as 60 to 80 percent by the end of the century as a result of increasing temperatures. The productivity of the State’s forests has the potential to decrease as a result of GCC.

Rising Sea Levels
Rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures could increasingly threaten the State’s coastal regions. Under the higher warming range scenario, sea level is anticipated to rise 22 to 35 inches by 2100. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate low-lying coastal areas with saltwater, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. Under the lower warming range scenario, sea level could rise 12-14 inches.

5.8.2 Related Regulations
The following regulations address both climate change and GHG emissions.

5.8.2.1 International Regulations
Climate change is a global issue involving GHG emissions from all around the world; therefore, countries such as the ones discussed below have made an effort to reduce GHGs.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
In 1988, the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization established the IPCC to assess the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human -induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation.

United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (‘Convention’) On March 21, 1994, the U.S. joined a number of countries around the world in signing the Convention. Under the Convention, governments gather and share information on GHG PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.8 City of Riverside
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.8-10
emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addr essing GHG emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries; and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

International Climate Change Treaties
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the Convention. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing GHG emissions at an average of five percent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008–2012. The Convention (as discussed above) encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize emissions; however, the Protocol commits them to do so. Developed countries have contributed more emissions over the last 150 years; therefore, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”
In 2001, President George W. Bush indicated that he would not submit the treaty to the U.S .

Senate for ratification, which effectively ended American involvement in the Kyoto Protocol. In December 2009, international leaders met in Copenhagen to address the future of international climate change commitments post -Kyoto. No binding agreement was reached in Copenhagen; however, the Committee identified the long- term goal of limiting the maximum global average temperature increase to no more than 2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels, subject to a review in 2015. The UN Climate Change Committee held additional meetings in Durban, South Africa in November 2011; Doha, Qatar in November 2012; and Warsaw, Poland in November 2013. The meetings are gradually gaining consensus among participants on individual climate change issues.

On September 23, 2014 more than 100 Heads of State and Government and leaders from the private sector and civil society met at the Climate Summit in New York hosted by the United Nations. At the Summit, heads of government, business and civil society announced actions in areas that would have the greatest impact on reducing emissions, including climate finance, energy, transport, industry, agriculture, cities, forests, and building resilience.

Parties to the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change reached a landma rk agreement on December 12, 2015 in Paris, charting a fundamentally new course in the two- decade-old global climate effort. Culminating a four-year negotiating round, the new treaty ends the strict differentiation between developed and developing countries that characterized earlier efforts, replacing it with a common framework that commits all countries to put forward their best efforts and to strengthen them in the years ahead. This includes, for the first time, requirements that all parties report regularly on their emissions and implementation efforts and undergo international review.

The agreement and a companion decision by parties were the key outcomes of the conference, known as the 21
st session of the Convention Conference of the Parties (COP) 21. Together, the Paris Agreement and the accompanying COP decision:

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.8
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.8-11
• Reaffirm the goal of limiting global temperature increase well below 2 degrees Celsius, while urging efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees; • Establish binding commitments by all parties to make “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs), and to pursue domestic measures aimed at achieving them; • Commit all countries to report regularly on their emissions and “progress made in implementing and achieving” their NDCs, and to undergo international review; • Commit all countries to submit new NDCs every five years, with the clear expectation that they will “represent a progression” beyond previous ones; • Reaffirm the binding obligations of developed countries under the UNFCCC to support the efforts of developing countries, while for the first time encouraging voluntary contributions by developing countries too;
• Extend the current goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year in support by 2020 through 2025, with a new, higher goal to be set for the period after 2025; • Extend a mechanism to address “loss and damage” resulting from climate change, which explicitly will not “involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation;” • Require parties engaging in international emissions trading to avoid “double counting;” and
• Call for a new mechanism, similar to the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, enabling emission reductions in one country to be counted toward another country’s NDC.

On June 2, 2017, former President Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. While the withdrawal was effective on November 4, 2020, President Joe Biden officially rejoined the Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021.

5.8.2.2 Federal Regulations
Prior to the last decade, there have been no concrete F ederal regulations of GHGs or major planning for climate change adaptation. The following are actions regarding the Federal government, GHGs, and fuel efficiency.

GHG Endangerment
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency 549 U.S. 497 (2007), decided on April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court found that four GHGs, including CO 2, are air pollutants subject to regulation under Section 202(a)(1) of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The Court held that the USEPA Administrator must determine whether emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. On December 7, 2009, the US EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under section 202(a) of the CAA:

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.8 City of Riverside
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.8-12
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six (6) key well- mixed GHGs – CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and sulfur hexafluoride – in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
• Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well -mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution, which threatens public health and welfare.

These findings do not impose requirements on industry or other entities. However, this was a prerequisite for implementing GHG emissions standards for vehicles, as discussed in the section “Clean Vehicles” below. After a lengthy legal challenge, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an Appeals Court ruling that upheld the USEPA Administrator’s findings.

Clean Vehicles
On September 15, 2011, the US EPA and the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued the final rule for the first national standards to improve the fuel efficiency of medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses, model years 2014 to 2018. For combination tractors, the agencies proposed engine and vehicle standards that would achieve up to a 20 percent reduction from model year 2014 in fuel consumption by the 2018 model year. For heavy -duty pickup trucks and vans, the agencies proposed separate gasoline and diesel truck standards, which would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction from model year 2014 for gasoline vehicles and a 15 percent reduction for diesel vehicles (12 and 17 percent, respectively, if accounting for air conditioning leakage). Lastly, for vocational vehicles, the engine and vehicle standards would achieve up to a 10 percent reduction from model year 2014 in fuel consumption. On October 25, 2016, the USEPA and the USDOT issued Phase 2 of the national standards to improve fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses for model years 2021 to 2027 to achieve vehicle fuel savings as high as 25 percent, depending on the vehicle category.

On August 2, 2018, the previous USEPA Administration released a notice of proposed rulemaking, The Safer Affordable Fuel -Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021– 2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule) to amend the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and GHG emission standards established in 2012 for model years 2021 through 2026. The SAFE Vehicle Rule would decrease fuel economy and would withdraw the California Waiver for the California Advanced Clean Car program, Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate, and GHG emission standards for model years 2021 through 2026.

The current USEPA administration withdrew portions of the SAFE Rule, concluding that the SAFE Rule overstepped the agency’s legal authority and finalized updated CAFE Standards for model years 2024 through 2026. The final rule establishes standards that would require an industry-wide fleet average of approximately 49 miles per gallon (mpg) for passenger cars and light trucks in model year 2026, by increasing fuel efficiency by 8 percent annually for model years 2024 and 2025, and 10 percent annually for model years 2026. The agency projects the final standards will save consumers nearly $1,400 in total fuel expenses over the lifetimes of vehicles produced in these model years and avoid the consumption of about 234 billion gallons of gas between model PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.8
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.8-13
years 2030 to 2050. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also projects that the standards will cut GHGs from the atmosphere, reduce air pollution, and reduce the country’s dependence on oil.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 aims to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security; increase the production of clean renewable fuels; protect consumers; increase the efficiency of products, buildings and vehicles; promote GHG research; improve the energy efficiency of the federal government; and improve vehicle fuel economy.

Mandatory Reporting of GHGs
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, passed in December 2007, requires the establishment of mandatory GHG reporting requirements. On September 22, 2009, the USEPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of GHGs Rule, which became effective January 1, 2010.

The rule requires reporting of GHG emissions from large sources and suppliers in the U.S. and is intended to collect accurate and timely emissions data to inform future policy decisions. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) or more of GHG emissions are required to submit annual reports to the USEPA.

New Source Review
The USEPA issued a final rule on May 13, 2010, that establishes thresholds for GHGs that define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities. This final rule “tailors” the requirements of these CAA permitting programs to limit which facilities will be required to obtain Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permits. In the preamble to the revisions to the Federal Code of Regulations, the USEPA states:
“This rulemaking is necessary because without it the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V requirements would apply, as of January 2, 2011, at the 100 or 250 tons per year levels provided under the Clean Air Act, greatly increasing the number of required permits, imposing undue costs on small sources, overwhelming the resources of permitting authorities, and severely impairing the functioning of the programs. EPA is relieving these resource burdens by phasing in the applicability of these programs to GHG sources, starting with the largest GHG emitters. This rule establishes two initial steps of the phase-in. The rule also commits the agency to take certain actions on future steps addressing smaller sources but excludes certain smaller sources from Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V permitting for GHG emissions until at least April 30, 2016.” The USEPA estimates that facilities responsible for nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions from stationary sources will be subject to permitting requirements under this rule. This PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.8 City of Riverside
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.8-14
includes the nation’s largest GHG emitters —power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities.

Standards of Performance for GHG Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units
As required by a settlement agreement, the USEPA proposed new performance standards for emissions of CO2 for new, affected, fossil fuel- fired electric utility generating units on March 27, 2012. New sources greater than 25 megawatts would be required to meet an output -based standard of 1,000 pounds of CO 2 per megawatt-hour, based on the performance of widely used natural gas combined cycle technology. It should be noted that on February 9, 2016 the U.S.

Supreme Court issued a stay of this regulation pending litigation. Additionally, the current USEPA Administrator has also signed a measure to repeal the Clean Power Plan, including the CO 2 standards.

Cap-and-Trade
Cap-and-trade refers to a policy tool where emissions are limited to a certain amount and can be traded or provides flexibility on how the emitter can comply. Successful examples in the U.S. include the Acid Rain Program and the Nitrous Oxide (NOX) Budget Trading Program and Clean Air Interstate Rule in the northeast. There is no F ederal GHG cap-and-trade program currently; however, some states have joined to create initiatives to provide a mechanism for cap-and-trade.

The Regional GHG Initiative is an effort to reduce GHGs among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Each state caps CO
2 emissions from power plants, auctions CO2 emission allowances, and invests the proceeds in strategic energy programs that further reduce emissions, save consumers money, create jobs, and build a clean energy economy. The Initiative began in 2008.

The Western Climate Initiative partner jurisdictions have developed a comprehensive initiative to reduce regional GHG emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The partners were originally California, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. However, Manitoba and Ontario are not currently participating. California linked with Quebec’s cap- and-trade system January 1, 2014, and joint offset auctions took place in 2015.

SmartWay Program
The SmartWay Program is a public‐private initiative between the USEPA, large and small trucking companies, rail carriers, logistics companies, commercial manufacturers, retailers, and other Federal and State agencies. Its purpose is to improve fuel efficiency and the environmental performance (reduction of both GHG emissions and air pollution) of the goods movement supply chains. SmartWay is comprised of four components (USEPA 2014):

1. SmartWay Transport Partnership: A partnership in which freight carriers and shippers commit to benchmark operations, track fuel consumption, and improve performance annually.

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.8
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.8-15

2. SmartWay Technology Program: A testing, verification, and designation program to help freight companies identify equipment, technologies, and strategies that save fuel and lower emissions.

3. SmartWay Vehicles: A program that ranks light‐ duty cars and small trucks and identifies superior environmental performers with the SmartWay logo.

4. SmartWay International Interests: Guidance and resources for countries seeking to develop freight sustainability programs modeled after SmartWay.

SmartWay effectively refers to requirements geared towards reducing fuel consumption. Most large trucking fleets driving newer vehicles are compliant with SmartWay design requirements.

Moreover, over time, all Heavy Duty ( HD) trucks will have to comply with the CARB GHG Regulation that is designed with the SmartWay Program in mind, to reduce GHG emissions by making them more fuel‐efficient. For instance, in 2015, 53 foot or longer dry vans or refrigerated trailers equipped with a combination of SmartWay -verified low- rolling resistance tires and SmartWay-verified aerodynamic devices would obtain a total of 10 percent or more fuel savings over traditional trailers.

Through the SmartWay Technology Program, the USEPA has evaluated the fuel saving benefits of various devices through grants, cooperative agreements, emissions and fuel economy testing, demonstration projects and technical literature review. As a result, the US EPA has determined the following types of technologies provide fuel saving and/or emission reducing benefits when used properly in their designed applications, and has verified certain products:
• Idle reduction technologies – less idling of the engine when it is not needed would reduce fuel consumption.
• Aerodynamic technologies minimize drag and improve airflow over the entire tractor‐trailer vehicle. Aerodynamic technologies include gap fairings that reduce turbulence between the tractor and trailer, side skirts that minimize wind under the trailer, and rear fairings that reduce turbulence and pressure drop at the rear of the trailer. • Low rolling resistance tires can roll longer without slowing down, thereby reducing the amount of fuel used. Rolling resistance (or rolling friction or rolling drag) is the force resisting the motion when a tire rolls on a surface. The wheel will eventually slow down because of this resistance.
• Retrofit technologies include things such as diesel particulate filters, emissions upgrades (to a higher tier), etc., which would reduce emissions. • Federal excise tax exemptions.

5.8.2.3 State Regulations
Legislative Actions to Reduce GHGs
The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills that constitute the most aggressive program to reduce GHGs of any state in the nation. Some legislation such as the landmark PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.8 City of Riverside
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.8-16
Assembly Bill (AB) 32 was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions. Other legislation such as Title 24 and Title 20 energy standards were originally adopted for other purposes such as energy and water conservation, but also provide GHG reductions. This section describes the major provisions of the legislation.

Assembly Bill 32
The California State Legislature enacted Assembly Bill ( AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. “GHGs” as defined under AB 32 include CO 2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and
sulfur hexafluoride. Since AB 32 was enacted, a seventh chemical, nitrogen trifluoride, has also been added to the list of GHGs. The CARB is the S tate agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs. AB 32 states the following:
“Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.”
CARB Scoping Plan
CARB adopted the Scoping plan to achieve the goals of AB 32, with the most recent plan update being the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan). The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by AB 1279. The actions and outcomes in the pla n would achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short- lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon. (CARB 2022a) Senate Bill 32
On September 8, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed the Senate Bill (SB) 32 and its companion bill, Assembly Bill (AB) 197. SB 32 requires the State to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15. The new legislation builds upon the AB 32 goal of 1990 levels by 2020 and provides an intermediate goal to achieving S-3-05, which sets a statewide GHG reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. AB 197 creates a legislative committee to oversee regulators to ensure that CARB not only responds to the Governor, but also the Legislature.

Cap-and-Trade Program
The Scoping Plan identifies a Cap-and-Trade Program as one of the key strategies for California to reduce GHG emissions. According to CARB, a cap-and-trade program will help put California PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.8
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.8-17
on the path to meet its goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 and ultimately achieving an 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. Under cap-and-trade, an overall limit on GHG emissions from capped sectors is established, and facilities subject to the cap will be able to trade permits to emit GHGs within the overall limit.

CARB adopted a California Cap-and-Trade Program pursuant to its authority under AB 32. (See Title 17 of the CCR §§ 95800 to 96023). The Cap-and-Trade Program is designed to reduce GHG emissions from major sources (deemed “covered entities”) by setting a firm cap on statewide GHG emissions and employing market mechanisms to achieve AB 32’s emission- reduction mandate of returning to 1990 levels of emissions by 2020. The statewide cap for GHG emissions from the capped sectors (e.g., electricity generation, petroleum refining, and cement production) commenced in 2013 and will decline over time, achieving GHG emission reductions throughout the program’s duration.

Covered entities that emit more than 25, 000 MTCO
2e per year must comply with the Cap- and-
Trade Program. Triggering of the 25 ,000 MTCO2e per year “inclusion threshold” is measured against a subset of emissions reported and verified under the California Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Emissions (Mandatory Reporting Rule or “MRR”).

Under the Cap -and-Trade Program, CARB issues allowances equal to the total amount of allowable emissions over a given compliance period and distributes these to regulated entities.

Covered entities are allocated free allowances in whole or part (if eligible), and may buy allowances at auction, purchase allowances from others, or purchase offset credits. Each covered entity with a compliance obligation is required to surrender “compliance instruments” (30) for each MTCO
2e of GHG they e mit. There also are requirements to surrender compliance instruments covering 30 percent of the prior year’s compliance obligation by November of each year. For example, in November 2014, a covered entity was required to submit compliance instruments to cover 30 percent of its 2013 GHG emissions.

The Cap-and-Trade Program provides a firm cap, ensuring that the 2020 statewide emission limit will not be exceeded. An inherent feature of the Cap- and-Trade program is that it does not guarantee GHG emissions reductions in any discrete location or by any particular source. Rather, GHG emissions reductions are only guaranteed on an accumulative basis. As summarized by CARB in the First Update:
“The Cap-and-Trade Regulation gives companies the flexibility to trade allowances with others or take steps to cost-effectively reduce emissions at their own facilities.

Companies that emit more have to turn in more allowances or other compliance instruments. Companies that can cut their GHG emissions have to turn in fewer allowances. But as the cap declines, aggregate emissions must be reduced. In other words, a covered entity theoretically could increase its GHG emissions every year and still comply with the Cap -and-Trade Program if there is a reduction in GHG emissions from other covered entities. Such a focus on aggregate GHG emissions is considered appropriate because climate change is a global phenomenon, and the effects of GHG emissions are considered cumulative.” PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.8 City of Riverside
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.8-18
The Cap- and-Trade Program works with other direct regulatory measures and provides an economic incentive to reduce emissions. If California’s direct regulatory measures reduce GHG emissions more than expected, then the Cap-and-Trade Program will be responsible for relatively fewer emissions reductions. If California’s direct regulatory measures reduce GHG emissions less than expected, then the Cap-and-Trade Program will be responsible for relatively more emissions reductions. Thus, the Cap- and-Trade Program assures that California will meet its 2020 GHG emissions reduction mandate:
“The Cap-and-Trade Program establishes an overall limit on GHG emissions from most of the California economy— the “capped sectors.” Within the capped sectors, some of the reductions are being accomplished through direct regulations, suc h as improved building and appliance efficiency standards, the [Low Carbon Fuel Standard] LCFS, and the 33 percent [Renewables Portfolio Standard] RPS.

Whatever additional reductions are needed to bring emissions within the cap is accomplished through price incentives posed by emissions allowance prices.

Together, direct regulation and price incentives assure that emissions are brought down cost-effectively to the level of the overall cap. The Cap-and-Trade Regulation provides assurance that California’s 2020 limit will be met because the regulation sets a firm limit on 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions. In sum, the Cap- and-Trade Program will achieve aggregate, rather than site specific or project - level, GHG emissions reductions. Also, due to the regulatory architecture adopted by CARB in AB 32, the reductions attributed to the Cap- and-Trade Program can change over time depending on the State’s emissions forecasts and the effectiveness of direct regulatory measures.”
As of January 1, 2015, the Cap-a nd-Trade Program covered approximately 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions. The Cap-and-Trade Program covers the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumed in California, whether generated in-state or imported. Accordingly, GHG emissions associated with CEQA projects’ electricity usage are covered by the Cap -and-Trade Program.

The Cap-and-Trade Program also covers fuel suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel providers and transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from such fuels and from combustion of other fossil fuels not directly covered at large sources in the Program’s first compliance period.

While the Cap-and-Trade Program technically covered fuel suppliers as early as 2012, they did not have a compliance obligation (i.e., they were not fully regulated) until 2015. The Cap- and- Trade Program covers the GHG emissions associated with the combustion of transportation fuels in California, whether refined in-state or imported. The point of regulation for transportation fuels is when they are “supplied” (i.e., delivered into commerce). Accordingly, as with stationary source GHG emissions and GHG emissions attributable to electricity use, virtually all, if not all, of GHG emissions from CEQA projects associated with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are covered by the Cap-and-Trade Program . In addition, the Scoping Plan differentiates between “capped” and “uncapped” strategies. “Capped” strategies are subject to the proposed cap-and-trade program.

The Scoping Plan states that the inclusion of these emissions within the Program will help ensure PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.8
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.8-19
that the year 2020 emission targets are met despite some degree of uncertainty in the emission reduction estimates for any individual measure. Implementation of the capped strategies is calculated to achieve a sufficient amount of reductions by 2020 to achieve the emission target contained in AB 32. “Uncapped” strategies that will not be subject to the cap-and-trade emissions caps and requirements are provided as a margin of safety by accounting for additional GHG emission reductions.

SB 375 – The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 Passing the Senate on August 30, 2008, Senate Bill (SB) 375 was signed by the Governor on September 30, 2008. According to SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions, which emits over 40 percent of the total GHG emissions in California. SB 375 states, “Without improved land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375 does the following: it (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans (RTP) for reducing GHG emissions, (2) aligns planning for transportation and housing, and (3) c reates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.

Concerning CEQA, SB 375, as codified in Public Resources Code Section 21159.28, states that CEQA findings for certain projects are not required to reference, describe, or discuss (1) growth inducing impacts, or (2) any project-specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips generated by the project on global warming or the regional transportation network, if the project:

1. Is in an area with an approved sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy that the CARB accepts as achieving the GHG emission reduction targets.

2. Is consistent with that strategy (in designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies).

3. Incorporates the mitigation measures required by an applicable prior environmental document.

AB 1493 Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards California AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the USEPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The USEPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011.

The standards phase in during the 2009 through 2016 model years. When fully phased in, the near-term (2009–2012) standards will result in about a 22 percent reduction compared with the 2002 fleet, and the mid- term (2013–2016) standards will result in about a 30 percent reduction.

Several technologies stand out as providing significant reductions in emissions at favorable costs.

These include discrete variable valve lift or camless valve actuation to optimize valve operation rather than relying on fixed valve timing and lift as has historically been done; turbocharging to PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.8 City of Riverside
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.8-20
boost power and allow for engine downsizing; improved multi-speed transmissions; and improved air conditioning systems that operate optimally, leak less, and/or use an alternative refrigerant.

The second phase of the implementation for the Pavley bill was incorporated into Amendments to the Low-Emission Vehicle Program referred to as LEV III or the Advanced Clean Cars program.

The Advanced Clean Car program combines the control of smog-causi ng pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025.

The regulation will reduce GHGs from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025. The new rules will clean up gasoline and diesel -powered cars, and deliver increasing numbers of zero - emission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging plug- in hybrid electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell cars. The package will also ensure adequate fueling infrastructure is available for the increasing numbers of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned for deployment in California.

SB 350 – Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 In October 2015, the legislature approved, and the Governor signed SB 350, which reaffirms California’s commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change. Key provisions include an increase in the RPS, higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings, initial strategies towards a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations. Provisions for a 50 percent reduction in the use of petroleum statewide were removed from the Bill because of opposition and concern that it would prevent the Bill’s passage.

Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce statewide GHG emissions:
• Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33 percent to 50 percent by 2030, with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 45 percent by 2027.
• Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target will be achieved through the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the California Energy Commission (CEC), and local publicly owned utilities.
• Reorganize the Independent System Operator to develop more regi onal electrify transmission markets and to improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.

Executive Orders Related to GHG Emissions
California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs through the use of Executive Orders. Although not regulatory, they set the tone for the S tate and guide the actions of State agencies.

Executive Order B-55-18 and SB 100
Executive Order B- 55-18 and SB 100. SB 100 and Executive Order B -55-18 were signed by Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. on September 10, 2018. Under the existing RPS, 25 percent of retail sales are required to be from renewable sources by December 31, 2016, 33 percent by December 31, 2020, 40 percent by December 31, 2024, 45 percent by December 31, 2027, and PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.8
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.8-21
50 percent by December 31, 2030. SB 100 raises California’s RPS requirement to 50 percent renewable resources target by December 31, 2026, and to achieve a 60 percent target by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also requires that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatt hours of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2024, 52 percent by December 31, 2027, and 60 percent by December 31, 2030. In addition to targets under AB 32 and SB 32, Executive Order B-55-18 establishes a carbon neutrality goal for the S tate of California by 2045; and sets a goal to maintain net negative emissions thereafter. The Executive Order directs the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA ), the Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), and CARB to include sequestration targets in the Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan consistent with the carbon neutrality goal.

Executive Order S-3-05
Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive Order S-3-05, the following reduction targets for GHG emissions:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid -term target. Because this is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.

Executive Order S-01-07 – Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) The Governor signed Executive Order S-01-07 on January 18, 2007. The order mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. In particular, the Executive Order established a LCFS and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the CEC, the CARB, th e University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life- cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. This analysis supporting development of the protocols was included in the State Implementation Plan for alternative fuels (State Alternative Fuels Plan adopted by CEC on December 24, 2007) and was submitted to CARB for consideration as an “early action” item under AB 32. The CARB adopted the LCFS on April 23, 2009.

The LCFS was challenged in the U.S. District Court in Fresno in 2011. The court’s ruling issued on December 29, 2011, included a preliminary injunction against CARB’s implementation of the rule. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the injunction on April 23, 2012, pending final ruling on appeal, allowing CARB to continue to implement and enforce the regulation. The Ninth PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.8 City of Riverside
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.8-22
Circuit Court’s decision, filed September 18, 2013, vacated the preliminary injunction. In essence, the court held that LCFS adopted by CARB were not in conflict with F ederal law. On August 8, 2013, the Fifth District Court of Appeal (California) ruled CARB failed to comply with CEQA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when adopting regulations for LCFS. In a partially published opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment and directed issuance of a writ of mandate setting aside Resolution 09-31 and two executive orders of CARB approving LCFS regulations promulgated to reduce GHG emissions. However, the court tailored its remedy to protect the public interest by allowing the LCFS regulations to remain operative while CARB complies with the procedural requirements it failed to satisfy.

To address the Court ruling, CARB was required to bring a new LCFS regulation to the Board for consideration in February 2015. The proposed LCFS regulation was required to contain revisions to the 2010 LCFS as well as new provisions designed to foster investments in the production of the low -carbon intensity fuels, offer additional flexibility to regulated parties, updat e critical technical information, simplify and streamline program operations, and enhance enforcement. On November 16, 2015 the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the Final Rulemaking Package. The new LCFS regulation became effective on January 1, 2016.

Executive Order S-13-08
Executive Order S -13-08 states that “climate change in California during the next century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of its population and to its natural resources.” Pursuant to the requirements in the Order, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy (CNRA 2009) was adopted, which is the “. . . first statewide, multi - sector, region-specific, and information-based climate change adaptation strategy in the United States.” Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.

Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued an executive order to establish a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The Governor’s executive order aligns California’s GHG reduction targets with those of leading international governments ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris late 2015. The Order sets a new interim statewide GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and directs CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMTCO 2e. The Order also requires
the State’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years, and for the State to continue its climate change research program, among other provisions. As with Executive Order S -3-05, this Order is not legally enforceable for local governments and the private sector. SB 32 is an extension of AB 32 and requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15. The new legislation builds upon the AB 32 goal and provides an intermediate goal to achieving S -3-05, PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.8
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.8-23
which sets a statewide GHG reduction target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. AB 197 creates a legislative committee to oversee regulators to ensure that CARB not only responds to the Governor, but also the Legislature.

California Regulations and Building Codes
California has a long history of adopting regulations to improve energy efficiency in new and remodeled buildings. These regulations have kept California’s energy consumption relatively flat even with rapid population growth.

Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Standards
CCR, Title 20: Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1601 -1608: Appliance Efficiency Regulations regulates the sale of appliances in California. The Appliance Efficiency Regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. 23 categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. The standards within these regulations apply to appliances that are sold or offered for sale in California, except those sold wholesale in California for final retail sale outside the State and those designed and sold exclusively for use in recreational vehicles or other mobile equipment.

Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Standards CCR Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions.

The CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code on August 11, 2021. The 2022 Energy Code includes encouraging efficient electric heat pumps, establishing electric-ready requirements for new homes, expanding solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, and strengthening ventilation standards. Buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code.

CCR, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on January 1, 2011, and is administered by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recently approved update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards that became effective January 1, 2023. The State Building Code provides the minimum standard that buildings must meet in order to be certified for occupancy, which is generally enforced by the local building official. 2022 CALGreen standards are applicable to the Project and require:
• Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction. For multifamily development projects with 20 or more dwelling units, hotels, and motels with 20 or more sleeping units or guest rooms (4.106.4.2.2):

PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
Section 5.8 City of Riverside
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR

5.8-24
o Ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces on a building site, provided for all types of parking facilities, shall be EV charging spaces capable of supporting future Level 2 electric vehicle charging station (EVSE). o 25 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles. For multifamily parking facilities, no more than one receptacle is required per dwelling unit when more than one parking space is provided for use by a single dwelling unit.
o Five (5) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 EVSE. Where common use parking is provided, at least one EV charger shall be located in the common use parking area and shall be available for use by all residents or guests.
• Construction waste management: Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with either (CalGreen) Section 4.408.2, 4.408.3, or 4.408.4, or meet a more stringent local construction and demolition waste management ordinance (4.408.1). • Recycling by occupants: Where five (5) or more multifamily dwelling units are constructed on a building site, provide easily accessible area(s) that serve(s) all building on the site and are identified for the depositing, storage, and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling, including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, organic waste, and metals, or meet a lawfully enacted local recycling ordinance, if more restrictive (4.410.2)
• Water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings. Plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) and fittings (faucets and showerheads) shall comply with the following:
o Water Closets. The effective flush volume of all water closets shall not exceed 1.28 gallons per flush (4.303.1.1)
o Urinals. The effective flush volume of wall-mounted urinals shall not exceed 0.125 gallons per flush The effective flush volume of all other urinals shall not exceed 0.5 gallons per flush (4.303.1.2)
o Showerheads. Single showerheads shall have a m aximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute and 80 psi ( 4.303.1.3). When a shower is served by more than one showerhead, the combined flow rate of all showerheads and/or other shower outlets controlled by a single valve shall not exceed 1.8 gallons per minute at 80 psi (4.303.1.3.2).
o Faucets. The maximum flow rate of residential lavatory faucets shall not exceed

1.2 gallons per minute at 60 psi. The minimum flow rate of residential lavatory faucets shall not be less than 0.8 gallons per minute at 20 psi (4.303.1.4.1). The maximum flow rate of lavatory faucets installed in common and public use areas PR-2022-001359 (GPA, SPZ, RZ, DR, TPM, EIR)
Exhibit 15 - Draft EIR
City of Riverside Section 5.8
Mission Grove Apartments Project DEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.8-25
(outside of dwellings or sleeping units) in residential buildings shall not exceed 0.5 gallons per minute at 60 psi.

CARB Refrigerant Management Program
CARB adopted a regulation in 2009 to reduce refrigerant GHG emissions from stationary sources through refrigerant leak detection and monitoring, leak repair, system retirement and retrofitting, reporting and recordkeeping, and proper refrigerant cylinder use, sale, and disposal. The regulation is set forth in sections 95380 to 95398 of Title 17, CCR. The rules implementing the regulation establish a limit on statewide GHG emissions from stationary facilities with refrigeration systems with more than 50 pounds of a high GWP refrigerant. The refrigerant management program is designed to (1) reduce emissions of high-GWP GHG refrigerants from leaky stationary, non-residential refrigeration equipment; (2) reduce emissions from the installation and servicing of refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances using high-GWP refrigerants; and (3) verify GHG emission reductions.

Riverside City CouncilAugust 20, 2024

Riverside City Council
August 20, 2024