Draft Environmental Impact Report — Riverside City Council, September 17, 2024 (part 1 of 3)

Annotated Draft
Environmental Impact Report
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project SCH No.
2023060428
Prepared for the Lead Agency
City of Riverside
3737 Main Street, Suite 400
Riverside, CA 92501
September 2024
www.webbassociates.com
Annotated Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2023060428
General Plan Amendment, ReZone, Site Plan Review,
and Certificate of Appropriateness
PR-2022-001252
Tentative Parcel Map No. 38638
Lead Agency
City of Riverside
3737 Main Street, Suite 400
Riverside, CA 92501
(951)826-2308
Contact: Brian Norton
CEQA Consultant
Albert A. Webb Associates
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
(951) 320-6007
Contact: Melissa Perez
September 2024
City of Riverside
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Table of Contents i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents......................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Project Location.........................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation.........................................................1-1

1.4 Project Characteristics...............................................................................................................1-2

1.5 Discretionary Actions and Approvals.......................................................................................1-12 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved ...................................................................1-48 Summary of Environmental Impacts........................................................................................1-49 Summary of Project Alternatives .............................................................................................1-73 Environmentally Superior Alternatives .....................................................................................1-76

2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Purpose and Scope ...................................................................................................................2-1

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

2.3 Lead and Responsible Agencies ...............................................................................................2-1

2.4 Project Applicant........................................................................................................................2-2

2.5 CEQA Procedures......................................................................................................................2-2

2.6 Documents Incorporated by Reference.....................................................................................2-4 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Project Location.........................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................................................3-1

3.3 Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation.........................................................3-1

3.4 Project Characteristics...............................................................................................................3-2

3.5 Discretionary Actions and Approvals.......................................................................................3-12

4.0 Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant ................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Effects Found Not to be Significant During Preparation of the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation.............................................................................................................................................4-1

5.0 Environmental Analysis .............................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Aesthetic Resources................................................................................................................ 5.1-1

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

5.1.2 Related Regulations ................................................................................................................5.1-2 City of Riverside
Table of Contents Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR ii

5.1.3 Comments Received in Response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation........................5.1-4

5.1.4 Thresholds of Significance......................................................................................................5.1-5

5.1.5 Project Design Features..........................................................................................................5.1-5

5.1.6 Methodology ...........................................................................................................................5.1-9

5.1.7 Environmental Impacts ...........................................................................................................5.1-9

5.1.8 Recommended Mitigation Measures....................................................................................5.1-16

5.1.9 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures Are Implemented .....................................................................................................................................5.1-16

5.2 Air Quality.................................................................................................................................. 5.2-1

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

5.2.2 Related Regulations ..............................................................................................................5.2-10

5.2.3 Comments Received in Response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation......................5.2-22

5.2.4 Thresholds of Significance....................................................................................................5.2-22

5.2.5 Project Design Features........................................................................................................5.2-22

5.2.6 Methodology .........................................................................................................................5.2-23

5.2.7 Environmental Impacts .........................................................................................................5.2-23

5.2.8 Proposed Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................5.2-32

5.2.9 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures Are Implemented .....................................................................................................................................5.2-32

5.3 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. 5.3-1

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

5.3.2 Related Regulations ..............................................................................................................5.3-10

5.3.3 Comments Received in Response to the Notice of Preparation..........................................5.3-14

5.3.4 Thresholds of Significance....................................................................................................5.3-14

5.3.5 Project Design Features........................................................................................................5.3-15

5.3.6 Methodology .........................................................................................................................5.3-15

5.3.7 Environmental Impacts .........................................................................................................5.3-17

5.3.8 Recommended Mitigation Measures....................................................................................5.3-24

5.3.9 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures Are Implemented .....................................................................................................................................5.3-29

5.4 Energy ....................................................................................................................................... 5.4-1

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

5.4.2 Related Regulations ................................................................................................................5.4-4 City of Riverside
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Table of Contents iii

5.4.3 Comments Received in Response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation......................5.4-12

5.4.4 Thresholds of Significance....................................................................................................5.4-12

5.4.5 Project Design Features........................................................................................................5.4-12

5.4.6 Methodology .........................................................................................................................5.4-12

5.4.7 Environmental Impacts .........................................................................................................5.4-13

5.4.8 Recommended Mitigation Measures....................................................................................5.4-18

5.4.9 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures are Implemented .....................................................................................................................................5.4-18

5.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................... 5.5-1

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

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

5.5.3 Comments Received in Response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation......................5.5-24

5.5.4 Thresholds of Significance....................................................................................................5.5-24

5.5.5 Project Design Features........................................................................................................5.5-25

5.5.6 Methodology .........................................................................................................................5.5-25

5.5.7 Environmental Impacts .........................................................................................................5.5-26

5.5.8 Recommended Mitigation Measures....................................................................................5.5-33

5.5.9 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures are Implemented .....................................................................................................................................5.5-34

5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................... 5.6-1

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

5.6.2 Related Regulations ................................................................................................................5.6-7

5.6.3 Comments Received in Response to the Notice of Preparation..........................................5.6-15

5.6.4 Thresholds of Significance....................................................................................................5.6-15

5.6.5 Project Design Features........................................................................................................5.6-15

5.6.6 Methodology .........................................................................................................................5.6-16

5.6.7 Environmental Impacts .........................................................................................................5.6-16

5.6.8 Recommended Mitigation Measures....................................................................................5.6-27

5.6.9 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures Are Implemented .....................................................................................................................................5.6-28

5.7 Land Use and Planning............................................................................................................ 5.7-1

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

5.7.2 Related Regulations ................................................................................................................5.7-2

5.7.3 Comments Received in Response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation........................5.7-8 City of Riverside
Table of Contents Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR iv

5.7.4 Thresholds of Significance......................................................................................................5.7-8

5.7.5 Project Design Features..........................................................................................................5.7-8

5.7.6 Methodology ...........................................................................................................................5.7-8

5.7.7 Environmental Impacts ...........................................................................................................5.7-8

5.7.8 Recommended Mitigation Measures....................................................................................5.7-10

5.8 Noise.......................................................................................................................................... 5.8-1

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

5.8.2 Related Regulations ................................................................................................................5.8-7

5.8.3 Comments Received in Response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation......................5.8-15

5.8.4 Thresholds of Significance....................................................................................................5.8-15

5.8.5 Project Design Features........................................................................................................5.8-16

5.8.6 Methodology .........................................................................................................................5.8-16

5.8.7 Environmental Impacts .........................................................................................................5.8-19

5.8.8 Recommended Mitigation Measures....................................................................................5.8-26

5.8.9 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures Are Implemented .....................................................................................................................................5.8-27

5.9 Population and Housing .......................................................................................................... 5.9-1

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

5.9.2 Related Regulations ................................................................................................................5.9-4

5.9.3 Comments Received in Response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation........................5.9-9

5.9.4 Thresholds of Significance......................................................................................................5.9-9

5.9.5 Project Design Features..........................................................................................................5.9-9

5.9.6 Methodology .........................................................................................................................5.9-10

5.9.7 Environmental Impacts .........................................................................................................5.9-10

5.9.8 Recommended Mitigation Measures....................................................................................5.9-11

5.9.9 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures Are Implemented .....................................................................................................................................5.9-12

5.10 Public Services ....................................................................................................................... 5.10-1

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

5.10.2 Related Regulations ..............................................................................................................5.10-4

5.10.3 Comments Received in Response to the Notice of Preparation..........................................5.10-6

5.10.4 Thresholds of Significance....................................................................................................5.10-6

5.10.5 Project Design Features........................................................................................................5.10-7 City of Riverside
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Table of Contents v

5.10.6 Methodology .........................................................................................................................5.10-7

5.10.7 Environmental Impacts .........................................................................................................5.10-7

5.10.8 Recommended Mitigation Measures..................................................................................5.10-10

5.10.9 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures Are Implemented ...................................................................................................................................5.10-10

5.11 Recreation............................................................................................................................... 5.11-1

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

5.11.2 Related Regulations ..............................................................................................................5.11-3

5.11.3 Comments Received in Response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation......................5.11-8

5.11.4 Thresholds of Significance....................................................................................................5.11-8

5.11.5 Project Design Features........................................................................................................5.11-8

5.11.6 Methodology .........................................................................................................................5.11-8

5.11.7 Environmental Impacts .........................................................................................................5.11-9

5.11.8 Recommended Mitigation Measures..................................................................................5.11-12

5.11.9 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures Are Implemented ...................................................................................................................................5.11-12

5.12 Traffic and Transportation .................................................................................................... 5.12-1

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

5.12.2 Related Regulations ..............................................................................................................5.12-7

5.12.3 Comments Received in Response to the Notice of Preparation........................................5.12-12

5.12.4 Thresholds of Significance..................................................................................................5.12-12

5.12.5 Project Design Features......................................................................................................5.12-12

5.12.6 Methodology .......................................................................................................................5.12-13

5.12.7 Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................................5.12-20

5.12.8 Recommended Mitigation Measures..................................................................................5.12-24

5.12.9 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures Are Implemented ...................................................................................................................................5.12-24

5.13 Tribal Cultural Resources...................................................................................................... 5.13-1

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

5.13.2 Related Regulations ..............................................................................................................5.13-3

5.13.3 Comments Received in Response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation......................5.13-8

5.13.4 Thresholds of Significance....................................................................................................5.13-8

5.13.5 Project Design Features........................................................................................................5.13-9

5.13.6 Methodology .........................................................................................................................5.13-9 City of Riverside
Table of Contents Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR vi

5.13.7 Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................................5.13-12

5.13.8 Recommended Mitigation Measures..................................................................................5.13-14

5.13.9 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures Are Implemented ...................................................................................................................................5.13-16

5.14 Utility and Service Systems................................................................................................... 5.14-1

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

5.14.2 Related Regulations ..............................................................................................................5.14-5

5.14.3 Comments Received in Response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation....................5.14-10

5.14.4 Thresholds of Significance..................................................................................................5.14-10

5.14.5 Project Design Features......................................................................................................5.14-10

5.14.6 Methodology .......................................................................................................................5.14-11

5.14.7 Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................................5.14-12

5.14.8 Recommended Mitigation Measures..................................................................................5.14-19

5.14.9 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures Are Implemented ...................................................................................................................................5.14-19

6.0 Consistency with Regional Plans .............................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Setting ........................................................................................................................................6-1

6.2 Related Regulations ...................................................................................................................6-2

6.3 Consistency Analysis .................................................................................................................6-3 Other CEQA Topics..................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Cumulative Impact Analysis.......................................................................................................7-1

7.2 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...............................................................................7-14

7.3 Growth Inducing Impacts.........................................................................................................7-15

7.4 Irreversible Environmental Changes ........................................................................................7-16

7.5 Consistency with Regional Plans.............................................................................................7-17

8.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project........................................................................................ 8-1

8.1. Project Objectives......................................................................................................................8-1

8.2. Summary of the Project’s Significant Unavoidable Impacts .....................................................8-2

8.3. Rationale for Alternative Selection.............................................................................................8-2

8.4. Alternatives Rejected From Further Consideration....................................................................8-3

8.5. Alternatives under Consideration...............................................................................................8-6

8.6. Comparison of Alternatives......................................................................................................8-23

9.0 References................................................................................................................................... 9-1 City of Riverside
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Table of Contents vii
Appendices
Appendix A – Documents Related to the Notice of Preparation Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters
Initial Study
Appendix A.1 – Approved Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan (PSOMAS-C) Appendix B –Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Technical Memorandum – Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the Arlington Mixed Use Project Site, City of Riverside, California (WEBB-A)
Energy Consumption Calculations (WEBB-B)
Appendix C – Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources Technical Report for 5261 Arlington Avenue, Riverside, California (DUDEK-A) Supplemental Cultural Memorandum for 5261 Arlington Avenue, Riverside, California (DUDEK-B) Adaptive Reuse Study (AO)
Structural Review (INNOVA)
Feasibility of Re-Tenanting Report (Axiom)
Appendix D – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (WEIS-A)
Addendum to Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (WEIS-B) Work Plan for Subsurface Assessment (WEIS-C)
Comprehensive Subsurface Assessment (WEIS-D)
Consistency Determination Letter (ALUC-A)
Staff Report for Case ZAP1107RI22 (ALUC-B)
ALUC Development Review-Commissioner Concerns Letter (ALUC-C) Appendix E – Noise
Noise Analysis Report Arlington Mixed-Use (dBF)
City of Riverside
Table of Contents Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR viii
Appendix F – Traffic and Transportation
Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Assessment Memorandum (WEBB-C) Traffic Impact Analysis (URBAN)
Appendix G – Utilities and Service Systems
Water Service Availability Notice (RPUD-WS)
Sewer Study Memorandum (CAROLLO)
City of Riverside
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Table of Contents ix
List of Figures
Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................ 1-13 USGS Topographical Map ................................................................................................. 1-14 Aerial Site Boundary Map................................................................................................... 1-15 Aerial Site Boundary with Offsites...................................................................................... 1-16 Existing General Plan Land Use Designation..................................................................... 1-17 Existing Zoning Designation............................................................................................... 1-18 Existing Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones ................................................................. 1-19 Proposed General Plan Land Use...................................................................................... 1-20 Proposed Zoning................................................................................................................ 1-21 Proposed Site Plan........................................................................................................... 1-22 Tentative Parcel Map........................................................................................................ 1-23 Existing Site Conditions ................................................................................................... 1-24 Proposed Demolition Plan................................................................................................ 1-25 Figure 1.0-14A, Proposed Elevations [Garden Style-3-Story Type I Front & Left] .................................. 1-26 Figure 1.0-14B, Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type II Front].................................................................. 1-27 Figure 1.0-14C, Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type III Rear, Left & Right]............................................. 1-28 Figure 1.0-14D, Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type III Front]................................................................. 1-29 Proposed Elevations [Garden Style3-Story Type III-Rear, Left & Right].......................... 1-30 Figure 1.0-16A, Proposed Elevations [Townhomes2-Story Type A-Enhanced] ..................................... 1-31 Figure 1.0-16B,Proposed Elevations [2-Story Type A-All Stucco V1]..................................................... 1-32 Figure 1.0-16C, Proposed Elevations [2-Story Type A-All Stucco V2].................................................... 1-33 Figure 1.0-17A, Proposed Floor Plans [Garden Style Plans 1 of 23-Story Type I] ................................. 1-34 Figure 1.0-17B, Proposed Floor Plans [3-Story Type II].......................................................................... 1-35 Proposed Floor Plans [Garden Style Plans 2 of 23-Story Type III] .................................. 1-36 Proposed Floor Plans [Townhome Plans2-Story Type A] ................................................ 1-37 Proposed Elevations ALDI Right & Rear .......................................................................... 1-38 Proposed Elevations ALDI Left & Front............................................................................ 1-39 Proposed Parking Plan..................................................................................................... 1-40 Conceptual Landscape Plan ............................................................................................ 1-41 Landscape Planting Plan.................................................................................................. 1-42 Plant Palette [1 of 2] ......................................................................................................... 1-43 City of Riverside
Table of Contents Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR x
Plant Palette [2 of 2] ......................................................................................................... 1-44 Wall and Fence Plan......................................................................................................... 1-45 Wall and Fences Details [1 of 2]....................................................................................... 1-46 Wall and Fence Details [2 of 2]......................................................................................... 1-47 Proposed Lighting Plan.................................................................................................... 1-48 Proposed Transportation Improvements ......................................................................... 1-49 Pedestrian Circulation ...................................................................................................... 1-50 Existing and Proposed Utility Plan................................................................................... 1-51 Proposed Drainage & Grading Plan ................................................................................. 1-52 Offsite Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 1-53 Figure 3.0-1, Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................ 3-14 Figure 3.0-2, USGS Topographical Map ................................................................................................. 3-15 Figure 3.0-3, Aerial Site Boundary Map................................................................................................... 3-16 Figure 3.0-4, Aerial Site Boundary with Offsites...................................................................................... 3-17 Figure 3.0-5, Existing General Plan Land Use Designation..................................................................... 3-18 Figure 3.0-6, Existing Zoning Designation............................................................................................... 3-19 Figure 3.0-7, Existing Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones ................................................................. 3-20 Figure 3.0-8, Proposed General Plan Land Use...................................................................................... 3-21 Figure 3.0-9, Proposed Zoning................................................................................................................ 3-22 Figure 3.0-10, Proposed Site Plan........................................................................................................... 3-23 Figure 3.0-11, Tentative Parcel Map........................................................................................................ 3-24 Figure 3.0-12, Existing Site Conditions ................................................................................................... 3-25 Figure 3.0-13, Proposed Demolition Plan................................................................................................ 3-26 Figure 3.0-14A, Proposed Elevations [Garden Style-3-Story Type I Front & Left] .................................. 3-27 Figure 3.0-14B, Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type II Front].................................................................. 3-28 Figure 3.0-14C, Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type III Rear, Left & Right]............................................. 3-29 Figure 3.0-14 D, Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type III Front]................................................................ 3-30 Figure 3.0-15, Proposed Elevations [Garden Style3-Story Type III-Rear, Left & Right].......................... 3-31 Figure 3.0-16A, Proposed Elevations [Townhomes2-Story Type A-Enhanced] ..................................... 3-32 Figure 3.0-16B, Proposed Elevations [2-Story Type A-All Stucco V1].................................................... 3-33 Figure 3.0-16C, Proposed Elevations [2-Story Type A-All Stucco V2].................................................... 3-34 Figure 3.0-17A, Proposed Floor Plans [Garden Style Plans 1 of 23-Story Type I] ................................. 3-35 City of Riverside
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Table of Contents xi
Figure 3.0-17B, Proposed Floor Plans [3-Story Type II].......................................................................... 3-36 Figure 3.0-18, Proposed Floor Plans [Garden Style Plans 2 of 23-Story Type III] .................................. 3-37 Figure 3.0-19, Proposed Floor Plans [Townhome Plans2-Story Type A]................................................ 3-38 Figure 3.0-20, Proposed Elevations ALDI Right & Rear .......................................................................... 3-39 Figure 3.0-21, Proposed Elevations ALDI Left & Front............................................................................ 3-40 Figure 3.0-22, Proposed Parking Plan..................................................................................................... 3-41 Figure 3.0-23, Conceptual Landscape Plan ............................................................................................ 3-42 Figure 3.0-24, Landscape Planting Plan.................................................................................................. 3-43 Figure 3.0-25, Plant Palette [1 of 2] ......................................................................................................... 3-44 Figure 3.0-26, Plant Palette [2 of 2] ......................................................................................................... 3-45 Figure 3.0-27, Wall and Fence Plan......................................................................................................... 3-46 Figure 3.0-28, Wall and Fences Details [1 of 2]....................................................................................... 3-47 Figure 3.0-29, Wall and Fence Details [2 of 2]......................................................................................... 3-48 Figure 3.0-30, Proposed Lighting Plan.................................................................................................... 3-49 Figure 3.0-31, Proposed Transportation Improvements ......................................................................... 3-50 Figure 3.0-32, Pedestrian Circulation ...................................................................................................... 3-51 Figure 3.0-33, Existing and Proposed Utility Plan................................................................................... 3-52 Figure 3.0-34, Proposed Drainage & Grading Plan ................................................................................. 3-53 Figure 3.0-35, Offsite Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 3-54 Figure 5.1-1, Architectural Details (Clubhouse Leasing) ........................................................................5.1-7 Figure 5.1-2, Architectural Details (Retail) ..............................................................................................5.1-8 Figure 5.1-3, View of Entry Residential from Streeter Avenue .............................................................5.1-12 Figure 5.1-4, Views of Townhomes and Pedestrian Connectivity........................................................5.1-13 Figure 5.1-5, Views Along Streeter Avenue..........................................................................................5.1-14 Figure 5.1-6, View of Entry Commercial form Arlington Avenue ..........................................................5.1-15 Figure 5.3-1, Sears Building South and North Elevation........................................................................5.3-8 Figure 5.3-2, Sears Auto Center South and West Elevation ..................................................................5.3-9 Figure 5.8-1, Ambient Noise Measurement Locations ...........................................................................5.8-6 Figure 5.8-2, Land Use/Noise Compatibility Guidelines ........................................................................5.8-9 Figure 5.8-3, Future Exterior Composite Noise Levels.........................................................................5.8-22 Figure 5.11-1, Open Space.................................................................................................................5.11-10 Figure 5.12-1, Master Plan of Roadways .............................................................................................5.12-2 Figure 5.12-2, Project Study Area ......................................................................................................5.12-15 City of Riverside
Table of Contents Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR xii
Figure 5.12-3, Project (Retail) Trip Distribution...................................................................................5.12-17 Figure 5.12-4, Project (Residential) Trip Distribution..........................................................................5.12-18 Figure 7.0-1, Cumulative Development Projects.......................................................................................7-3 Figure 8.0-1, Viable 17+Acre Parcels Zoning Map..............................................................................8-5 City of Riverside
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Table of Contents xiii
List of Tables
Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................................................1-2 Building Square Footage Summary......................................................................................1-4 Phase 1 Estimated Construction Schedule ..........................................................................1-8 Phase 2 Estimated Construction Schedule ..........................................................................1-8 DEIR Impact Summary Matrix.............................................................................................1-49 Comparison of Alternatives Matrix......................................................................................1-73 Table 2.0-A, Written Comments Received During the NOP Comment Period .........................................2-3 Table 3.0-A, Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................................................3-2 Table 3.0-B, Building Square Footage Summary......................................................................................3-4 Table 3.0-C, Phase 1 Estimated Construction Schedule ..........................................................................3-7 Table 3.0-D, Phase 2 Estimated Construction Schedule ..........................................................................3-8 Table 5.2-A, Riverside Fire Station 3 Metrological Data.........................................................................5.2-3 Table 5.2-B, Primary Sources and Effects of Criteria Pollutants............................................................5.2-7 Table 5.2-C, Air Quality Monitoring Summary: 2019-2021 (SRA 23) ....................................................5.2-9 Table 5.2-D, Attainment Status ............................................................................................................5.2-10 Table 5.2-E, CALGreen Code Electric Vehicle Charging Space Calculation .......................................5.2-14 Table 5.2-F, CALGreen Code Requirements for Medium- and Heavy-Duty EVSE..............................5.2-15 Table 5.2-G, Phase 1 Estimated Construction Schedule.....................................................................5.2-25 Table 5.2-H, Phase 2 Estimated Construction Schedule .....................................................................5.2-25 Table 5.2-I, Construction Equipment....................................................................................................5.2-25 Table 5.2-J, Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions.........................................................5.2-27 Table 5.2-K, LST Results for Unmitigated Daily Construction Emissions............................................5.2-28 Table 5.2-L, Unmitigated Estimated Daily Project Operation Emissions (Summer).............................5.2-30 Table 5.2-M, Unmitigated Estimated Daily Project Operation Emissions (Winter)...............................5.2-30 RPU Electricity Consumption in 2021 (GWh)1....................................................................5.4-2 Natural Gas Consumption in SCG Service Area (2021)1 ...................................................5.4-3 Construction Energy Use.................................................................................................5.4-14 Table 5.5-A, Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes ....................................................5.5-3 Table 5.5-D, Project Construction Equipment GHG Emissions ...........................................................5.5-26 Table 5.5-E, Energy-Related GHG Emissions ......................................................................................5.5-27 Table 5.5-F, Total Unmitigated Project-Related Annual GHG Emissions ............................................5.5-28 City of Riverside
Table of Contents Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR xiv
Table 5.5-G, Consistency with City of Riverside General Plan ............................................................5.5-30 Table 5.5-H, Project Consistency with the City of Riverside Climate Action Plan...............................5.5-32 Table 5.6-A, Land Use Compatibility Criteria .........................................................................................5.6-3 Table 5.6-B, Compatibility Zone Factors................................................................................................5.6-5 Table 5.6-C, Residential Density Consistency .....................................................................................5.6-23 Table 5.6-D, Non-Residential Intensity Consistency............................................................................5.6-24 Table 5.8-A, Typical Noise Levels of Common Sounds .........................................................................5.8-2 Table 5.8-B, Human Response Levels to Groundborne Vibration..........................................................5.8-4 Table 5.8-C, Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration...........................................................................5.8-4 Table 5.8-D, Vibration Damage Potential................................................................................................5.8-5 Table 5.8-E, Existing Noise Levels (dBA) ...............................................................................................5.8-5 Table 5.8-F, Exterior Noise Standards ..................................................................................................5.8-14 Table 5.8-G, Interior Noise Standards ..................................................................................................5.8-15 Table 5.8-H, Grading Noise Source Levels...........................................................................................5.8-17 Table 5.8-I, FTA Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment................................................5.8-23 Table 5.9-A, SCAG Growth Forecasts (Riverside County) .....................................................................5.9-2 Table 5.9-B, SCAG Growth Forecast (Riverside)....................................................................................5.9-2 Table 5.9-C, City of Riverside RHNA 2021-2029 ...................................................................................5.9-3 Table 5.10-A, Riverside Police Stations ...............................................................................................5.10-2 Table 5.10-B, Multi-Year RUSD Student Enrollment............................................................................5.10-9 Table 5.11-A, City-Owned Park/Recreational Facilities .......................................................................5.11-3 Table 5.11-B, Project Qualified Open Space Provided ........................................................................5.11-9 Project Study Area .......................................................................................................5.12-14 Level of Service (LOS) – Existing and Existing Plus Project (Opening Year 2028)......5.12-22 Tribal Communications ................................................................................................5.13-12 Table 5.14-A, Project Utility Providers..................................................................................................5.14-1 Table 5.14-B, Existing Potable Water Supply and Demand.................................................................5.14-2 Table 5.14-C, Existing and Projected Wastewater Capacity ...............................................................5.14-4 Table 5.14-D, Existing Solid Waste Capacity .......................................................................................5.14-5 Table 5.14-E, Existing and Future Water Service Supply and Demand1............................................5.14-13 Table 5.14-F, Projected Water Demand .............................................................................................5.14-14 Table 5.14-G, Project Site Wastewater ..............................................................................................5.14-15 City of Riverside
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Table of Contents xv
Table 5.14-H, Project Construction Waste.........................................................................................5.14-17 Table 5.14-I, Project Operational Waste.............................................................................................5.14-18 Table 6.0-A, SCAG Growth Forecasts (Riverside).....................................................................................6-1 Table 6.0-B, Proposed Project Consistency with the Connect SoCal 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goals........6-4 Table 7.0-A, Cumulative Development Projects........................................................................................7-2 Table 7.0-B, Location in which DEIR Consistency with Regional Plans is Discussed............................7-18 Table 8.0-A, Alternative 1: No Demolition/Keep Existing Commercial Designation .................................8-9 Table 8.0-B, Alternative 2: Adaptive Reuse to Residential Project Objectives Comparison ..................8-14 Table 8.0-C, Alternative 3: Allowable Residential Dwelling Units...........................................................8-15 Table 8.0-D, Alternative 3: ALUC Consistent Project Objectives Comparison.......................................8-18 Table 8.0-E, Alternative 4 Density Reduction ..........................................................................................8-20 Table 8.0-F, Alternative 4: Reduced Density/Intensity Project Objectives Comparison.........................8-21 Table 8.0-G, Comparison of Impacts from Project Alternatives .............................................................8-23 City of Riverside
Table of Contents Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR xvi
List of Acronyms
Acronyms
µg/m3 Micrograms/cubic meter
AAF Average Annual Flow
AAM Annual Arithmetic Mean
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB Assembly Bill
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow
AFY Acre-feet per year
ALMS Automatic Load Management System
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMD Air Quality Management District
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
AYSO American Youth Soccer Organization
Bcf Billion cubic feet
BSC California Building Standards Code
C Commercial
CAA Clean Air Act
café Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CalGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CalOSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Cal Recycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans State Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CAPP Community Air Protection Program
CARB California Air Resources Board
CAS Climate Adaptation Strategy
CAT Climate Action Team
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDC California Department of Conservation
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEHD Community Economic and Human Development
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CF Cubic Feet
City of Riverside
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Table of Contents xvii
Acronyms
CFC California Fire Code
CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
CG Commercial General
CH4 Methane
CHRIS California Historical Resource Information System City City of Riverside
CIWMP Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan
CMA Congestion Management Agency
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
COA Certificate of Appropriateness
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
COG Council of Governments
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRECs Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CSD Community Service Districts
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CWA Clean Water Act
DCDA Double Check Detector Assembly
DHS California Department of Health Services
dB decibels
dBA Decibel A (A-weighted sound level)
dBA/DD Decibel A per each doubling of the distance
DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
DIF Development Impact Fees
DOE Department of Energy
DOF Department of Finance
DOT United States Department of Transportation
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
du/ ac Dwelling units per acre
DWR California Department of Water Resources
ED Emergency Department
EE Energy Efficient
EIC Eastern Information Center
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPCA The Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act
ERIS Environmental Risk Information Services
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
EV Electric Vehicle
City of Riverside
Table of Contents Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR xviii
Acronyms
EVCS Electric Vehicle Charging Station
EVSE Electrical Vehicle Supply Equipment
F Fahrenheit
FAR Floor Area Ration
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FT Feet
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GGE Billion Gross Gasoline Equivalents
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GMZ Groundwater Management Zone
GP 2025 City of Riverside General Plan 2025
GPA General Plan Amendment
GPM Gallons Per Minute
GPUI City of Riverside Phase I General Plan Update
GPUI FEIR City of Riverside Phase I General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report
GWP Global Warming Potential
HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants
HC hydrocarbons
HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development HCP Habitat Conservation Plans
HHWE Household Hazardous Waste Element
HRECs Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
HVLP High velocity-low pressure
IEBA Inland Empire Biking Alliance
IEPR Integrated Energy Policy Report
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change
IS Initial Study
ISO Insurance Service Office
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
JPR Joint Project Review
I-15 Interstate 15
kBTUs Kilo-British thermal units
KWh Kilowatt-hours
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LDMF Local Development Mitigation Fee
Ldn Day-Night Average Noise Level
Leq Equivalent Sound Level
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LOS Levels of Service
LRSP Local Roadway Safety Plan
City of Riverside
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Table of Contents xix
Acronyms
LRTS Long Range Transportation Study
M Meter
MARB March Air Force Base
MC Municipal Code
MEP Maximum Extent Practicable
MERV Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value
MGD Million Gallons Per Day
million MTCO2E million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MPH miles per hour
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MSHCP Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan MSL Maximum Screening Level
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
MU-V Mixed-Use Village
MW Megawatt
MWD Metropolitan Water District
MY model year
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NCP National Contingency Plan
NDFE Non-Disposal Facility Element
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
NHTSA National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration NO Nitric Oxide
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx Oxides of Nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWS National Weather Service
O3 Ozone
OEHHA Office Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OPC California Ocean Protected Council
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OWS oil/water separator
Pb Lead
PCE Tetrachloroethylene
PEV Plug in-vehicles
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PM Atmospheric Particulate Matter
PPB Parts per billion
City of Riverside
Table of Contents Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR xx
Acronyms
PPM Parts per million
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
PRC Master Plan Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Community Services Master Plan PRIMP Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program PV Photovoltaic
PWWF Peak Wet Weather Flows
QSD Qualified SWPPP Developer
QSP Qualified SWPPP Practitioner
RCA Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Agency RCALUP Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan
RCFC & WCD Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District REC Recognized Environmental Conditions
RFD Riverside Fire Department
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RMA LUCP Riverside Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ROG Reactive Organic Gases
ROW right-of-way
RPD Riverside Police Department
RPL Riverside Public Library
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RPU Riverside Public Utilities
RPW City’s Public Works Department
RSL Regional Screening Levels
RSHA Regional System of Highways and Arterials
RTA Riverside Transit Agency
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RUSD Riverside Unified School District
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
RZ Rezone
RWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCG Southern California Gas
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric
SF Square Feet
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SIP State Implementation Plan
SKR Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat
SLCP Short-lived Climate pollutants
SLF Sacred Lands File
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SRA 23 Sauce Receptor Area 23
City of Riverside
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Table of Contents xxi
Acronyms
SRA State Responsibility Area
SR-60 California State Route 60
SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element
STC Sound Transmission Class
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TACs Toxic air contaminants
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TCA Federal Toxic Substances Control Act
TCA 1,1,1,-trichloroethane
T-BACT Best Available Control Technology For Toxics
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
TDM Transportation Demand Management Regulations
TEA-21 The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TNM Traffic Noise Model
TPA Transit Priority Area
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPM Tentative Parcel Map
TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (Western Riverside County) UC University of California
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
US DOT United Stated Department of Transporation
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UST Underground Storage Tanks
UWMP Urban Water Management Plans
VdB Vibration decibels
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
WMD Water Management District
WMWD Western Municipal Water District
WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
ZE Zero Emission
ZEV Zero Emission Vehicles
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-1
Executive Summary
This DEIR is being prepared to analyze the potential environmental effects of the construction and implementation of the proposed Arlington Mixed Use project including all on- and off-site improvements, and associated discretionary actions, including but not limited to City of Riverside project number PR2022-001252 which includes a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Site Plan Review, Tentative Parcel Map, and Certificate of Appropriateness, all of which are herein collectively referred to as the “Project.” All figures associated with this section start of page 1.0-12.

1.1 Project Location
The City of Riverside (City) is located in the northwestern portion of Riverside County. The City is bounded on the north by the Cities of Jurupa Valley, Colton, and Grand Terrace and the unincorporated community of Highgrove, to the east by the City of Moreno Valley, to the south by the unincorporated community of Woodcrest, and to the west by the Cities of Corona and Norco as reflected in Figure 1.0- 1, Vicinity Map. The Project site is located within Section 33, Township 2 South and Range 5 West of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, identified on the Riverside West, California USGS 7.5 Quadrangle Map as identified in Figure 1.0-2, USGS Topographical Map.

The Project entails, an approximately 17.43 gross acre and 17.37 net acre site (after dedication of 0.05 acres along Arlington Avenue for road right-of-way), located at the northeast corner of Arlington Avenue and Streeter Avenue as depicted in Figure 1.0-3, Aerial Site Boundary Map. The Project site consists of assessor parcel number (APN) 226-180-015-1; specifically located at 5261 Arlington Avenue, Riverside CA 92506. Project parcel throughout this document is based upon net acreage of 17.37 acres. The Project also includes approximately 1.5 miles of offsite impacts located within roadway rightof-way as reflected in Figure 3.0-4, Aerial Site Boundary with Offsites.

1.2 Environmental Setting
The proposed Project consists of an existing fully developed site, amongst an urbanized area and is completely surrounded by existing development. No natural habitats are located on site. Hence, no habitat to support listed or protected species has been identified. The Project site is relatively flat with an average elevation of approximately 787 feet above mean sea level gently sloping to the northwest.

1.3 Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation The Project site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of C – Commercial and a zoning designation of CG – Commercial General as reflected in Figure 1.0-5, Existing General Plan Land Use Designation and Figure 1.0-6, Existing Zoning Designation.

1.3.1 Surrounding Land Uses
The area surrounding the Project site is developed and urbanized with a variety of land uses, including commercial, medium-high density residential, high-density residential, office, and public facilities. Refer to Table 1.0-A, Surrounding Land Uses, for the existing land usage and general plan land use and zoning designations for the surrounding area.

Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-2
Surrounding Land Uses
Location
Existing
Land Usage
General Plan Land Use
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Project Site
Existing Vacant Sears
Department Store and
Auto Center
C – Commercial CG – CommercialGeneral
North
Residential Uses
Office Uses
Vacant
O – Office
PF – Public Facilities
C – Commercial
CG – Commercial
General
R- 1- 7000 – Single
Family Residential
East
Residential Uses
Office Uses
MDR – Medium Density
Residential
O - Office
R- 1- 7000 – Single
Family Residential
O – Office
South
(Across Arlington
Avenue and
California Avenue)
Commercial and
Office Uses
C – Commercial
HDR – High Density
Residential
CR – Commercial Retail
CG – Commercial
General
O – Office
West
(Across Streeter
Avenue )
Residential, Office,
and Commercial Uses
MDR – Medium Density
Residential
O – Office
C – Commercial
PF – Public Facilities
CG – Commercial
General
O – Office
R- 1- 7000 – Single
Family Residential

1.3.2 Airport Land Use
The Project site is located within the Riverside County Airport Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (RCALUCP) and is approximately one mile from the airport runway (GE); specifically the Riverside Municipal Airport (RMA). A majority of the Project site is located within the RMA Land Use Compatibility Zone B1 with smaller portions located with Zones C and D as shown in Figure 3.0-7, Riverside Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones. The proposed Project is required to be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission for its consistency with the RCALUCP. (RCALUCP). On January 12, 2023, ALUC determined the Project to be inconsistent with the RCALUCP.

1.4 Project Characteristics

1.4.1 Project Land Use Applications
The proposed Project includes the following entitlement applications for consideration by the City of Riverside:

General Plan Amendment (GPA): Proposes to amend the general plan land use designation from C – Commercial to MU-V – Mixed Use-Village as per Figure 1.0-8, Proposed General Plan Land Use.

City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-3
Rezone (RZ): Proposes to rezone the site from CG – Commercial General to MU- V – Mixed Use-Village as per Figure 1.0-9, Proposed Zoning.

Site Plan Review (PPE): Proposes to develop the 17.37 net acre site with a 576,203 square foot (sf) mixed-use apartment community. Proposal includes development of 27 residential apartment buildings consisting of 2- and 3-story structures that would provide for a total of 388 residential dwelling units, one clubhouse building, and two commercial buildings providing for 546,474 sf of residential use and 4,409 sf associated clubhouse/leasing building, and 25,320 sf of commercial-retail use as per Figure 1.0-10, Proposed Site Plan.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 38638(TPM): Proposes to subdivide the 17.37 net acre site into 2 parcels for financing, conveyance, and phasing purposes. Parcel 1 will consist of 14.44 net acres for residential development and Parcel 2 will consist of 2.93 net acres for commercialretail development as per Figure 1.0-11, Tentative Parcel Map.

Certificate of Appropriateness (COA): Proposal to demolish the existing vacant Sears structures.

The Sears structures were built in 1964 and have been deemed eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 3, National Register for Historic Places, and the City of Riverside Historical Landmarks.

Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Override to Inconsistency Determination (File No. ZAP1107RI22): Proposal to override the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission’s January 12, 2023 Inconsistency Determination to the 2005 Riverside Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670.

1.4.2 Existing Site Conditions
The existing Project site includes two existing vacant commercial buildings located on the 17.37 net acre parcel that are associated with the former Sears Department Store and Automotive Service Center constructed in the mid 1960’s1 as shown in Figure 1.0-12, Existing Site Conditions. These structures are eligible for listing in the National Register for Historic Places, California Register for Historic Resources, and the City of Riverside Historical Landmarks.

The former department store was located in the central building, now a vacant structure. The interior of the vacant department store building includes retail areas, warehouse and supply storage areas, subgrade basement areas, public and freight hydraulic elevators, and restrooms. The basement area contains a disconnected boiler, trash compactor, and emergency generator. A smaller automotive service center structure is located on the western portion of the property. This building includes six bay doors opening to a concrete-paved former service area with secondary containment structures, nine hydraulic hoists, and a sub-grade oil/water separator. (WEIS-A, p. 4).

The site formerly contained a vehicle fueling island with three 10,000-gallon gasoline USTs which were removed in 1985 and seven 1,000 to 2,000-gallon oil and waste oil USTs removed in 1987; the fueling station island and distribution lines were removed in 1994. The balance of the remaining site property comprises asphalt-paved parking areas, driveways, and minor landscaping. (WEIS-A, p. 4).

The existing site provides six access points: two along Arlington Avenue and four along Streeter Avenue.

Access from Arlington Avenue consists of two full-access driveways leading to a surface parking area containing cement planters for the ornamental trees, a 3-foot cinder block wall (also referred to as Concrete masonry unit wall [CMU wall]) along site frontage and light poles for security lighting. The eastern portion of the site is composed of a surface parking area with ornamental trees and security

1. Per Cultural Resource Technical Assessment prepared by Dudek dated March 2023 (DUDEK-A).

Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-4
lighting. The eastern boundary abuts existing residential development where a 6-foot block wall divides the site from the neighboring properties. Access from Streeter Avenue consists of two full-access driveways, leading to the existing Auto Center area, Sears building loading dock, and includes additional surface parking with ornamental trees and security lighting. The northern boundary abuts existing residential development, commercial offices, and a vacant parcel where a 6-foot block wall divides the site from neighboring properties.

The Project site has remained vacant since February 2020, when Sears ceased operations.

Occasionally, the vacant structure is utilized for the seasonal store “Spirit Halloween.” (PE) and the site’s parking lot was briefly used in 2020 as a COVID drive-thru testing site. Currently, the Project site surface parking area along the southeast corner has been used by the Riverside Certified Farmers Markets every Friday morning (RUHS). After the site ceased to be utilized as a COVID thru testing site, the Sears building was burglarized and vandalized. Building systems that have been removed/stolen or damaged is rampant throughout the interior of the building. Hence, the building is no longer operational in its present condition. Since this incident, the Project site has been under 24-hour security.

1.4.3 Proposed Project
Demolition
The proposed Project would include the demolition of the existing vacant 192,139 sf former Sears buildings and all appurtenances per Figure 1.0-13, Demolition Plan. Sears Auto Center is a 13,713 sf structure. The 178,426 sf Sears structure consists of a 90,526 sf basement and 87,900 sf ground level.

A 6-foot high protection fence with windscreen material will be installed around the site during demolition to obscure views of the site. The Project will use crushed concrete and asphaltic concrete from the Project site as engineered fill material in accordance with recommendations from the Geotechnical Reports.

Project Attributes
The Project proposes development of approximately 576,203 sf of residential and commercial-retail uses as reflected in Figure 1.0-10 and Table 1.0-B, Building Square Footage Summary. The Project will include several amenities including: onsite leasing office, tuck-under garages, carports, public dog park, outdoor resort style pool and spa, fitness area, clubhouse, shade structures with barbeques and tables, multi-use turf areas, outdoor gaming and play spaces. The project also proposes a variety of rooftop and carport solar panels with a fixed tilt of 10 degrees with no rotation, and an orientation of 90 degrees.

Building Square Footage Summary
Building Type Building No. Dwelling Units Square Footage Residential
Garden Style3-Story – Type III 1 30 39,805
Garden Style3-Story – Type III 2 30 39,805
Garden Style3-Story – Type I 3 18 21,000
Garden Style3-Story – Type II 4 20 25,339
Garden Style3-Story – Type II 5 20 25,339
Garden Style3-Story – Type II 6 20 25,339
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-5
Building Square Footage Summary
Building Type Building No. Dwelling Units Square Footage Garden Style3-Story – Type II 7 20 25,339
Garden Style3-Story – Type II 8 20 25,339
Garden Style3-Story – Type II 9 20 25,339
Garden Style3-Story – Type III 10 30 39,805
Garden Style3-Story – Type III 11 30 39,805
Garden Style3-Story – Type III 12 30 39,805
Garden Style3-Story – Type III 13 30 39,805
2-Story – Type ATownhome 14 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 15 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 16 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 17 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 18 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 19 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 20 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 21 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 22 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 23 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 24 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 25 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 26 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 27 5 9,615
Residential Subtotal 388 546,474
Clubhouse/Fitness/Leasing N/A 4,409
Commercial
Grocery N/A N/A 20,320
Retail N/A N/A 5,000
Commercial Subtotal N/A 25,320
TOTALS 388 576,203
Residential
The residential component of the proposed Project includes development of 27 residential buildings providing for 546,474 sf of residential use and one 4,409 sf Clubhouse/Fitness/Leasing building. The Clubhouse/Fitness/Leasing building will be publicly accessible while the residential portion will be accessible via gates. The residential buildings will allow for a total of 388 dwelling units and be divided Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-6
between 13 3-story garden style buildings providing for 318 dwelling units and 14 2-story townhome buildings providing for 70 dwelling units. The unit mix will be comprised of 18 studio units, 152 onebedroom units, 28 two-bedroom units, and 42 three-bedroom units. As reflected in Figure 1.0-10, buildings 1-13 would be 3-Story garden style residential structures. Buildings 14-27 would be 2-Story townhomes. The 3-Story garden style buildings would introduce 318 residential units, while the 2-Story townhomes would introduce 70 residential units. The 3-Story Garden Style residential buildings will offer varying exterior styles. Proposed residential elevations and floor plans are reflected in the following figures:
 Figure 1.0-14A, Proposed Elevations [Garden Style-3-Story Type I Front & Left]  Figure 1.0-14B, Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type II Front]  Figure 1.0-14C, Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type III Rear, Left & Right]  Figure 1.0-14D, Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type III Front]  Figure 1.0-15, Proposed Elevations [Garden Style3-Story Type III-Rear, Left & Right]  Figure 1.0-16A, Proposed Elevations [Townhomes2-Story Type A-Enhanced]  Figure 1.0-16B, Proposed Elevations [2-Story Type A-All Stucco V1]  Figure 1.0-16C, Proposed Elevations [2-Story Type A-All Stucco V2]  Figure 1.0-17A, Proposed Floor Plans [Garden Style Plans 1 of 23-Story Type I]  Figure 1.0-17B, Proposed Floor Plans [3-Story Type II]  Figure 1.0-18, Proposed Floor Plans [Garden Style Plans 2 of 23-Story Type III]  Figure 1.0-19, Proposed Floor Plans [Townhome Plans2-Story Type A] These exterior styles will contain the following four main Mid-Century Modern style elements: clean lines, color palettes, solid simple clean box, and flat roof a similar color palette to unify the buildings throughout the Project site and provide homage to the existing structure. Each residential building will include horizontal lines, box framing, breeze block, stonework, and stamped metal façade. Signage will pay homage by incorporating a font similar to that of the Sears structures. The residential area will also provide a 4,036 sf dog park, pedestrian promenade, picnic, pool and spa, shade structures, barbeques and tables, outdoor gaming and play spaces, multi-use turf areas, and play areas. The dog park will be accessible through a gate on the residential side and accessible to the public via a gate in the commercial area
Commercial-Retail
The proposed Project will provide 25,320 sf of commercial-retail use by way of two commercial-retail buildings in the southeastern portion of the site along Arlington Avenue which will also incorporate similar clean lines, color palettes, clean box, flat roof and signage that utilizes a font similar to the Sears structures. A 5,000 square feet (sq. ft.) multi-tenant retail speculative pad would be located in the southwestern corner of the project site with an adjoining outdoor dining/flex space that could include a 24-hour operation. This area of the site also proposes a 20,320 sq. ft. grocery store pad as reflected in Figure 1.0-20, Proposed Elevations ALDI Right & Rear and Figure 1.0-21, Proposed Elevations ALDI Left & Front. The Project is projected to have up to 51 employees.2

2. Source: County of Riverside General Plan Appendix E-2: Socioeconomic Buildout Assumptions and Methodology, Table E-5: Commercial Employment Factors, pg 3, dated April 11, 2017, available at https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/general_Plan_2017/appendices/Appendix%20E2_April%202017.pdf?ver=2017-10-23-153612-743, accessed November 14, 2022.

Based on employee generation rate of 500 square feet per employee of commercial retail (25,320 sf ÷ 500 sf/employee = 51 employees).

City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-7
The proposed grocery store is expected to operate between the hours of 9am and 9pm seven days a week. The store is estimated to include approximately 20 employees; scheduling 3 to 7 employees per shift. Store deliveries are expected to take place once per day, by a WB67 truck from the Moreno Valley warehouse located southwest of Redlands Boulevard and State Route 60. There will also be limited small truck deliveries for beverages and bakery items.

Parking
As shown in Figure 1.0-22, Proposed Parking Plan, the Project will provide parking areas for residential occupants, residential guests, and commercial-retail users. The plan provides for a total of 815 parking spaces across the entirety of the site. A total of 683 parking spaces will be dedicated to residential uses and includes 594 standard stalls, 20 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) accessible stalls, 66 electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) stalls, and 3 ADA/EVCS stalls. A total of 132 parking stalls will be dedicated to commercial-retail uses which includes 111 standard stalls, 7 ADA accessible stalls, 12 EVSC stalls, and 2 ADA/EVCS stalls. Additionally, the site will provide 41 stalls for bicycle parking.

Open Space
The Project will include open space throughout the proposed development. Specifically, within the private residential areas per City requirements, the Project should provide 19,400 square feet of open space and the public/common areas should also provide 19,400 square feet of open space. The Project will include 36,502 sf of private open space associated with each of the residential building areas, as well as 57,071 sf in the public/common areas. The public common open space includes areas such as the dog park, pool, and clubhouse. There are 72 existing ornamental, non-native trees located throughout the site. The Project will remove these trees and instead provide a landscape plant palette consistent with Riverside Citywide Design Guidelines for Water Efficient Landscape and Irrigation Design Guidelines, amended January 2019 (RCDG) as well as plants consistent with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commissions Landscaping Near Airports: Special Considerations for Preventing or Reducing Wildlife Hazards to Aircraft (ALUC-A) as reflected in the following figures:
 Figure 1.0-23, Conceptual Landscape Plan
 Figure 1.0-24, Landscape Planting Plan
 Figure 1.0-25, Plant Palette [1 of 2]
 Figure 1.0-26, Plant Palette [2 of 2]
The residential portion of the Project site will be surrounded by a 6 foot high tubular steel fence, 6 foot high block wall, or combination block wall/steel fence as reflected in Figure 1.0-27, Wall and Fence Plan. The Project includes details for walls and fences within the site and around the perimeter of the site as well as sign plans, fountain wall, dog park gates, vehicular gates, and access gates for residential access as reflected in Figure 1.0-28, Wall and Fences Details [1 of 2] and Figure 1.0-29, Wall and Fence Details [2 of 2].

Lighting
The proposed Project will include exterior building lights and pedestrian lighting for safety and security purposes within parking lots, along pathways, and on buildings as identified in Figure 1.0-30, Proposed Lighting Plan. All light sources will be shielded so that the light is directed away from streets and adjoining properties. Further, all light fixtures will be required to be consistent with the City of Riverside Municipal Code – Title 19, Zoning Code for illumination. Existing streetlights are located along Streeter Avenue and Arlington Avenue within the right-of-way.

Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-8
Construction
Construction is anticipated to take approximately 23 months and will be built in two phases with the first phase being commercial parcel, and the second phase being the residential parcel as reflected in Table

1.0-C, Phase 1 Estimated Construction Schedule and Table 1.0-D, Phase 2 Estimated Construction Schedule, below. Grading of the Project site will include 18,376 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 18,127 CY of fill. This activity results in a net export of approximately 249 CY. When import or export is within 2 percent of the overall grading values, a site is considered to be balanced. Since export will be less than 2 percent of the overall grading value of the Project, the site is considered to be balanced. Construction is anticipated to commence July 2024 and be completed in 2026.

Phase 1 Estimated Construction Schedule
Construction Activity Start Date End Date Total Working Days Demolition July 1, 2024 July 26, 2024 20
Grading July 29, 2024 August 9, 2024 10
Building Construction August 12, 2024 June 27, 2025 230 Paving June 9, 2025 June 27, 2025 15
Architectural Coating June 9, 2025 June 27, 2025 15
Phase 2 Estimated Construction Schedule
Construction Activity Start Date End Date Total Working Days Grading January 1, 2025 January 28, 2025 20
Building Construction January 29, 2025 May 26, 2026 345 Architectural Coating December 3, 2025 May 26, 2026 125 Paving January 29, 2025 March 25, 2025 40
Grading would be accomplished with scrapers, motor graders, water trucks, dozers, and compaction equipment. It is anticipated Building materials would be off-loaded and installed using small cranes, boom trucks, forklifts, rubber-tired loaders, rubber-tired backhoes, and other small- to medium-sized construction equipment as needed.

1.4.4 Vehicular Circulation and Site Access
Regional access to the Project Site is provided via State Route 91 (SR-91) from Madison Avenue ramps located approximately 0.8 miles to the south, as well as Arlington Avenue ramps located 1.5 miles to the south. Local access is provided via Arlington Avenue and Streeter Avenue. Arlington Avenue is currently constructed to its ultimate half-section width as an arterial along the Project’s frontage from the Project’s western boundary to the Project’s eastern boundary. Specifically, Arlington Avenue is classified as a 120 feet (ft) arterial street with 6 lanes east of Streeter Avenue and an 88 ft arterial street with 4 lanes west of Streeter Avenue. Also, Streeter Avenue is currently constructed to its ultimate half-section width as an 88 ft arterial along the Project’s frontage from the Project’s southern boundary to the Project’s northern boundary.

The proposed Project site will leave in place four of the six existing full access driveways: two along Arlington Avenue and two along Streeter Avenue. Primary site access for the residential area will be from Streeter Avenue with secondary access from Arlington Avenue. The existing driveway will be enhanced by the addition of decorative pavement and an art installation. Primary access for the commercial area City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-9
will be from Arlington Avenue with secondary access from Streeter Avenue. The following lists the proposed improvements and is reflected in Figure 1.0-31, Proposed Transportation Improvements:

Driveway and Roadways
 Driveway #1 - Streeter Avenue and Granada Avenue Intersection o Install a stop control on the westbound approach (the Project driveway) and construct a westbound shared left-through-right turn lane.
 Driveway #2 - Streeter Avenue and El Molino Avenue Intersection o Install a stop control on the westbound approach (the Project driveway) and construct a westbound shared left-through-right turn lane.
 Driveway #3 - California Avenue and Arlington Avenue Intersection o Install a stop control on the southbound approach (the Project driveway), construct a southbound right turn lane and construct a westbound right turn lane.  Driveway #4 - Along Arlington Avenue
o Construct a shared left-through-right turn lane on the southbound approach (the Project driveway), construct a westbound right turn lane, improve the existing traffic signal infrastructure with Audible Push Buttons, install a new traffic signal pole on the north leg, widen Project driveway (north leg of intersection), relocate the existing traffic signal pole located on the north leg to accommodate new drive aisle width and sidewalk/curb-andgutter locations, and modify existing raised median to provide 150-foot eastbound left turn pocket.
 Streeter Avenue and Arlington Avenue Intersection
o Improve the existing traffic signal infrastructure with Audible Push Buttons, cut back medians on the north, east and west legs to allow for a clear travel path for pedestrians at all approaches and purchase a new traffic signal controller for this intersection.  Streeter Avenue from southern Project boundary to northern Project boundary o Improve curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping as necessary for site access and consistent with City standards.
 Arlington Avenue from western Project boundary to eastern Project boundary o Dedicate 5-feet of pavement from the existing curb-and gutter (60-feet from centerline to edge of ROW) on Arlington Avenue and improve curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping as necessary for site access and consistent with City standards.  California Avenue, Streeter Avenue, and Arlington Avenue o Modify the traffic signal to implement a 130-second cycle.

Bikeways
 Streeter Avenue
o From Central Avenue to Arlington – stripe a Class II bike lane. o Streeter Avenue/Granada Avenue Intersection – stripe a northbound and southbound Class II bike lane on the east and west sides of Streeter Avenue. o Streeter Avenue/Sierra Street South – stripe a northbound and southbound Class II bike lane on the east and west sides of Streeter Avenue.
o Streeter Avenue/Sierra Street North – stripe a northbound and southbound Class II bike lane on the east and west sides of Streeter Avenue.

Visitor parking will be provided within the entry plaza prior to entering the residential area and several areas throughout the residential portion for residential guests. The residential portion of the Project site will be gated. Primary access to the residential portion of the site will be acquired from Streeter Avenue Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-10
via two access gates along both sides of the entry driveway. A second and third access gate will be provided from the commercial area. The internal road network is designed to be at least 20 feet wide to allow for emergency vehicle access. The driveway north of the existing Bank of America on Streeter Avenue will serve as egress for future residents and as an emergency access. All entrances and exits will be gate controlled.

Public Transit
The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) currently serves the Project area. Route 12 travels along Streeter Avenue while Route 15 travels along Arlington Avenue in the Project area. The nearest bus stops and shelters are located on Arlington Avenue and Streeter Avenue. The bus shelter along Arlington Avenue is situated in front of the location of the proposed ALDI. The City will replace the shelter once Arlington Avenue has been widened.

1.4.5 Pedestrian Circulation, Bike Lanes and Site Access As shown in Figure 1.0-32, Pedestrian Circulation, the Project will provide several pedestrian pathways to facilitate the movement of pedestrians within the site. These pathways will be lit to ensure security. The Project site will also provide pedestrian linkage to the surrounding area by providing connection to the existing sidewalks along Streeter Avenue and Arlington Avenue. Additionally, the Project will stripe a Class II bike lane along Streeter Avenue, from Central Avenue to Arlington Avenue.

1.4.6 Infrastructure and Utilities
As the Project is an existing developed site with existing vacant structures, utilities are provided within and around the site. Several of the existing utility facilities on-site will be removed and replaced or relocated as reflected in Figure 1.0-33, Existing and Proposed Utility Plan, to provide connection to existing facilities within the rights-of-way.

Water
Public water service for both potable and non-potable/recycled water would be provided by RPU. There is an existing 8-inch water line exists in Streeter Avenue, and an existing 12-inch line in Arlington Avenue. Project will connect to the existing lines in both Streeter and Arlington via 10-inch meter and backflow devices.

Sewer
Wastewater treatment for the project would be provided by the City Public Works Department at the Riverside Regional Water Quality Control Plant. The proposed project would connect to an existing 8- inch sewer line located on Streeter Avenue and 21-inch sewer line in Arlington Avenue through 8-inch sewer laterals.

Stormwater Facilities
The proposed Project site will be paved and landscaped throughout. The proposed Project will relocate existing on-site storm drain system and provide new on-site drainage and be designed to incorporate catch basins and biotreatment BMPs and landscaping features to redirect, capture, and treat surface runoff from new development prior to entering the existing storm drain system through connection to the existing 30-inch and 33-inch lines in Streeter Avenue as reflected on Figure 1.0-34, Proposed Drainage & Grading Plan.

City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-11
Electricity
RPU provides electrical services to the Project site. All electrical facilities would connect to existing connections in Arlington Avenue and Streeter Avenue. There are existing power poles located along Arlington Avenue located within the right-of-way. An additional circuit will be required to meet the Project’s estimated electric demand. This will require approximately 1.5 miles of offsite trenching to connect to existing RPU electric facilities. Trenching will occur within existing ROW and will include approximately 0.5 miles in Streeter Avenue from Arlington Avenue to Central Avenue; approximately 0.5 miles in Central Avenue from Streeter Avenue to Hillside Avenue; and approximately 0.5 miles in Hillside Avenue from Central Avenue to Mountain View Avenue. It is anticipated that trenching may be as deep as 7 to 8 feet below ground. There is some existing conduit and vaults within this alignment. The Project will be required to provide areas of new 6.5-inch conduit and approximately 10 electric vaults sized at 8 feet by 14 feet in order to provide the additional circuit and connect to existing facilities. RPU staff reviewed the proposed project and with the addition of the offsite extensions adequate electrical facilities exist to serve the Project. With these improvements, RPU has sufficient capacity to serve the Project site.

Natural Gas
Southern California Gas provides natural gas service to the Project site. Existing lines exist in both Arlington and Streeter Avenues to which the project will connect. A 30-inch transmission line also exists in Arlington Avenue. Transmission lines are generally large diameter pipelines that operate at pressures above 200 psi and transport gas from supply points to the gas distribution system.

1.4.7 School District
The Riverside Unified School District will serve the Project site. The project will be responsible for impact fees assessed by the school district.

1.4.8 Off-Site Improvements
All offsite improvements are related to electric facilities and associated roadway improvements described in Section 1.4.4 above. The offsite area encompasses approximately 13 acres. A small 0.15 acres portion of this offsite improvement area is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Criteria Cell number 621, Subunit 1 – Santa Ana River South as reflected in Figure 1.0-35, Offsite Biological Resources.

1.4.9 Project Objectives
Per Section 15124 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR needs to include a statement of the objectives of a project which will help the City develop a reasonable range of alternatives. The Objectives need to outline the general purpose of the Project and are as follows:

Primarily, provide quality, multi-family housing on an existing underutilized site, to help the City meet the State’s allocated 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) housing unit numbers, as well as the City’s overarching self-prescribed housing unit numbers.

Place housing near a transit corridor to reduce residential vehicle miles traveled and associated congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.

Place housing near existing commercial uses to encourage pedestrian connectivity and to reduce vehicular usage and associated impacts.

Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-12
Provide compatible mixed-use development contributing to the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Establish a mixed-use development that will provide a land use transition between the existing commercial Hardman Center and the residential developments surrounding the project site.

1.5 Discretionary Actions and Approvals
The Draft EIR serves as an informational document for use by public agencies, the public, and decision makers. This Draft EIR discusses the impacts of development pursuant to the proposed Project and related components and analyzes Project alternatives. This Draft EIR will be used by the City of Riverside and responsible agencies in assessing impacts of the proposed Project. The following approvals and permits are required from the City of Riverside to implement the proposed Project:
 General Plan Amendment (GPA) - to amend the existing General Plan Land Use designation of Commercial to Mixed-Use Village;
 Rezone (RZ) - to change the current zoning designation of Commercial General to Mixed-Use Village;
 Site Plan Review - for an approximately 576,203 square foot mixed use development including 388 dwelling units on approximately 17.37 net acres.
 Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) - to subdivide 17.37 net acre site into 2 parcels for financing, conveyance, and phasing purposes; and
 Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) - to demolish the existing vacant Sears structures,which have been found to be eligible for listing as a historical resource.  Certification of the EIR - with the determination that the EIR has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA.

Other non-discretionary actions anticipated to be taken by the City at the staff level as part of the proposed Project include:

Review and approval of all infrastructure plans, including street and utility improvements pursuant to the conditions of approval;
Review all on-site plans, including grading and on-site utilities; and Approval of a preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to mitigate post-construction runoff flows.

Approvals and permits that may be required by other agencies include:

Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) - A NPDES permit from the to ensure that construction site drainage velocities are equal to or less than the pre-construction conditions and downstream water quality is not worsened Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) - Consistency Determination Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority – Joint Project Review Determination Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 1.0-1 Vicinity Map
Source: Riverside County GIS, 2020.

H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\vicinity_map\vicinity_map.aprx; Map created 06 Dec 2022 San Bernardino Co.

Riverside Co.

Orange Co.

Prado
Lake Basin
Lake
Mathews
Santa Ana River

ONTARIO
CORONA
NORCO

RIVERSIDE

PROJECT
SITE
^
MORENO
VALLEY
SAN

BERNARDINO
COLTON
RIALTO

UPLAND RANCHO

CUCAMONGA

REDLAND
PERRIS

FONTANA
JURUPA
VALLEY
EASTVALE ·|þ}210
·|þ}18
·|þ}60
·|þ}259
·|þ}91
·|þ}60
·|þ}74
§¨¦10
§¨¦215
§¨¦15
§¨¦215
§¨¦15
£¤66
£¤66
Map
Area
0 2 4 6
Miles
I
Figure 1.0-2 USGS Topographic Map
LEGEND
Project Site
H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\usgs_topo_map\usgs_topo_map.aprx; Map created 06 Dec 2022; virginiaw Arlington Mixed Use
0 1,000
I
2,000 3,000
Feet
Sources: ESRI / USGS 7.5min Quads:

RIVERSIDE WEST
1 1
Figure 3.0-4 Existing General Plan Land Use Designation

SIERRA ST

ARLINGTON AVE CAPISTRANO WAY

STREETER AVE

GRANADA AVE

EL MOLINO AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

ARLINGTON AVE

SIERRA ST
LEGEND
Project Site
City of Riverside General Plan Land Use Designations
Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Office
Public Facilities/Institutional
H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\gplu\gplu.aprx; Map created 06 Dec 2022 Arlington Mixed Use
0 150
I
300 450
Feet
Sources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2020;
City of Riverside General Plan
Land Use, 2021.
1 5
Figure 3.0-5 Existing Zoning Designation

SIERRA ST

ARLINGTON AVE CAPISTRANO WAY

STREETER AVE

GRANADA AVE

EL MOLINO AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

ARLINGTON AVE

1 1

H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\existing_site_conditions\existing_site_conditions_7-31.aprx Map created 01 Aug 2024 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024 Figure 1.0-12 Existing Site Conditions Arlington Mixed Use
Legend
Trees scheduled
for removal
Trees
NTS
H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\proposed_demolition\proposed_demolition.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024.

Arlington Mixed Use Project
Figure 3.0-13 Proposed Demolition Plan
NTS
1 H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\building_elevations\building_elevations.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024
Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-14A Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type I]
NTS
1 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024
Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-14B Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type II - Front] H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\building_elevations\building_elevations.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 NTS
1 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024
Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-14C Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type II - Rear, Left & Right] H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\building_elevations\building_elevations.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 NTS
1 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024
Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-14D Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type III - Front] H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\building_elevations\building_elevations.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 NTS
1 H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\building_elevations\building_elevations.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024
Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-15 Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type III - Rear, Left & Right] NTS
1 Figure 1.0-16A Proposed Elevations [2-Story Type A Enchanced] Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024
Arlington Mixed Use
NTS
\\brkpan01.webb.lan\WO4\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\building_elevations\building_elevations.aprx Map created 01 Aug 2024 Figure 3.0-16B Proposed Elevations [2-Story Type A-AII Stucco V1] Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024
Arlington Mixed Use
NTS
H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\building_elevations\building_elevations.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 1 H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\building_elevations\building_elevations.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 Figure 3.0-16C Proposed Elevations [2-Story Type A-All Stucco V2] Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024
Arlington Mixed Use
NTS
1 H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\proposed_floor_plan\proposed_floor_plan.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024.

Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-17A Proposed Floor Plans [3-Story Type I]
NTS
H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\proposed_floor_plan\proposed_floor_plan.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024.

Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-17B Proposed Floor Plans [3-Story Type II]
NTS
H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\proposed_floor_plan\proposed_floor_plan.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024
Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-18 - Proposed Floor Plans [3-Story Type III] NTS
H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\proposed_floor_plan\proposed_floor_plan.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024.

Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-19 Proposed Floor Plans [2-Story Type A]
NTS

1 H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\wall_fence_plan\wall_fence_plan.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024.

Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-28 Wall and Fence Details [1 of 2]
NTS
H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\wall_fence_plan\wall_fence_plan.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024.

Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-29 Wall and Fence Details [2 of 2]
NTS
1 Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-54
Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved
An Initial Study was prepared by the City of Riverside Planning Department to assess the Project’s potential to result in significant environmental impacts. A Notice of Preparation (NOP), which included the Initial Study, was circulated to 32 responsible agencies and interested parties. A notice advising of the availability of the NOP was posted by the Riverside County Clerk from June 14, 2023. The NOP was posted at the California State Clearinghouse on June 15, 2023.

In accordance with Section 15082(c)(1) and Section 15083 of the CEQA Guidelines, a public virtual scoping meeting was held on July 12, 2023 between 6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. via zoom. One member from the public attended this scoping meeting but provided no comments.

Copies of the NOP (including the Initial Study) and NOP distribution list are located in Appendix A.

Copies of comments regarding the NOP received by the City of Riverside Planning Department are also included in Appendix A.

By the close of the 30-day public review period on July 14, 2023, three responses to the IS/NOP were received. Comments in response to the IS/NOP were received from the following:
 Beverly Phillips
 Inland Empire Biking Alliance
 Native American Heritage Commission
In accordance with Section 15123(b)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency including issues raised by agencies and the public shall be identified in the EIR. Section 15123(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify issues to be resolved. The thresholds used to determine whether or not effects are significant are included in the “Thresholds of Significance” section for each topic discussion in this EIR.

City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-55
Summary of Environmental Impacts
The following table, Table 1.0-E, Draft EIR Impact Summary Matrix/Mitigation Monitoring Program, provides a summary of impacts related to the proposed project. The table identifies significant environmental impacts resulting from the project pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(1).

DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
IMPACT Category: Aesthetics
In a non-urbanized area, would the
proposed Project substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? In an
urbanized area, would the proposed Project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Less Than Significant Mitigation not required
IMPACT Category: Air Quality
Would the Project conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Less Than Significant Mitigation not required
Would the Project result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Less Than Significant Mitigation not required
Would the project expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant
concentration?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Less Than Significant Mitigation not required
IMPACT Category: Biological Resources (Mitigation Measures brought in from Initial Study) 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
MM BIO-1: Nesting Birds.

Prior to issuance of grading, should
tree and/or vegetation removals be
required during the nesting/breeding
season (between February 1st and
August 31st,), a pre-removal nesting
bird survey shall be required. If
No more than 3
days prior to
initiation of grading
Developer /
Biologist
Less Than Significant
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-56
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? construction is proposed a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird
survey(s) no more than three (3) days
prior to initiation of grading to
document the presence or absence of
nesting birds within or directly
adjacent (100 feet) to the Project Site.

The survey(s) shall focus on identifying
any raptors and/or bird nests that are
directly or indirectly affected by
construction activities. If active nests
are documented, species specific
measures shall be prepared by a
qualified biologist and implemented to
prevent abandonment of the active
nest. At a minimum, grading in the
vicinity of a nest shall be postponed
until the young birds have fledged.

The perimeter of the nest setback
zone shall be fenced or adequately
demarcated with stakes and flagging
at 20-foot intervals, and construction
personnel and activities restricted
from the area. A survey report by a
qualified biologist verifying that no
active nests are present, or that the
young have fledged, shall be
submitted to the City of Riverside for
review and approval prior to initiation
of grading in the nest-setback zone.

The qualified biologist shall serve as a
construction monitor during those
periods when construction activities
occur near active nest areas to ensure
that no inadvertent impacts on these
nests occur. A final monitoring report
of the findings, prepared by a qualified
biologist, shall be submitted to the
City of Riverside documenting
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-57
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
compliance with the CDFG Code. Any
nest permanently vacated for the
season shall not warrant protection
pursuant to the CDFG Code.

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?
See MM BIO-1 above See MM BIO-1
above
See MM BIO-1
above
Less than significant
IMPACT Category: Cultural Resources (Mitigation Measures MM CR-5 brought in from Initial Study) Would the Project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?
The Project would result in significant
Project and Cumulative impacts to Cultural
Resources.

MM CR-1: Historical Resources.

Prior to the demolition or rehabilitation
of the existing structures on the
Project parcel, the City shall ensure
preparation of Historic American
Building Survey (HABS) Level I or
Short Format-like documentation in
accordance with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Architectural
and Engineering Documentation. All
work shall be conducted by an
architectural historian who meets the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards for
architectural history and/or history.

The HABS-like documentation shall
follow the guidelines set forth by the
National Park Service (NPS) for HABS
I or Short Format documentation. The
HABS-like document shall include:
 Black and white photographs with
large-format negatives of exterior
and interior views (10 views
minimum);
 Photograph Index;
 Photocopies with large-format
negatives of select, existing
Prior to demolition
or rehabilitation
Developer / City Significant and
Unavoidable. A
Statement of Overriding
Considerations is
required prior to Project
approval
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-58
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
drawings or historic views that are
produced in accordance with the
U.S. Copyright Act; and
 Full-length historical report, as
outlined in the Guidelines for
Architectural and Engineering
Documentation in the Federal
Register (68 FR 43159).

Large format photography shall be
completed prior to issuance of any
project related permitting or
construction. Photographic
documentation of the existing
structures on the Project parcel shall
be prepared to the National Park
Service’s HABS standards. A
minimum of ten (10) views should be
recorded, including views of the
overall site and landscaping context
as well as detailed views of each
elevation of existing structures. HABS
standards require large-format blackand-white photography, with the original negatives having a minimum
size of 4 inches by 5 inches. The
photographer shall be familiar with the
recordation of historical resources in
accordance with HABS guidelines,
and digital photography, roll film, and
manipulation of images are not
acceptable. Photographs shall include
a photo index, and field notes, and be
identified and labeled using HABS
standards outlined in National Park
Service’s guidelines Preparing
HABS/HAER/HALS Documentation -
Transmittal Guidelines.

A draft laser copy (or digital PDF) of
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-59
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
the finished photographs formatted to
the photo index shall be reviewed and
approved by a historic preservation
program staff member with City of
Riverside prior to final archival prints
being made. A copyright release form
signed by the photographer releasing
copyright of the large format
photographs into the public domain
for public benefit shall be required
with the deliverables. One original
copy of the final HABS-like
documentation packet shall be offered
to the following entities:
 City of Riverside Historic
Preservation Program
(administered through the
Historic Preservation,
Neighborhoods and Urban
Design Division of the
Community Development
Department);
 Riverside Public Library;
 Riverside Historical Society; and
 Riverside Metropolitan Museum.

Would the Project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an
archeological resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?
MM CR-2: Archaeological
Resources – Inadvertent Finds.

The applicant/owner/developer will
retain a qualified archaeological
principal investigator, as defined
above, to assess information available
(final grading and construction plans,
geotechnical testing results, as-built
plans, etc.) and determine the depth
at which native soils exist and would
be impacted by project
implementation. The depth of native
soils shall be included in the Plan so
Prior to issuance of
grading plans
Developer /
Archaeologist
Less than significant
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-60
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
as to guide when cultural
(archaeological and Native American)
monitoring is appropriate. Impacts to
cultural resources shall be minimized
through implementation of pre- and
post- construction tasks. Tasks
pertaining to cultural resources
include the development of a Cultural
Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent
Discovery Plan (Plan). The purpose of
the Plan is to outline a program of
monitoring occurrence as well as
treatment and mitigation in the case of
an inadvertent discovery of cultural
resources during ground-disturbing
phases (including but not limited to
preconstruction site mobilization and
testing, grubbing, removal of soils for
remediation, construction ground
disturbance, construction grading,
trenching, and landscaping) and to
provide for the proper identification,
evaluation, treatment, and protection
of any cultural resources throughout
the duration of the Project. This Plan
should define the process to be
followed for the identification and
management of cultural resources in
the Project site during construction.

The existence of and importance of
adherence to this Plan should be
stated on all Project site plans
intended for use by those conducting
the ground disturbing activities. The
Plan will also include the conditions
under which Native American and
archaeological monitoring is required
pursuant to MM CR-4, below, and the
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-61
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
manner of facilitation.

MM CR-3: Archaeological
Resources - Preparation of a WEAP.

Prior to commencement of
construction activities for all phases of
Project implementation, the project
applicant/owner/developer shall retain
a qualified archaeologist, meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards for
Archaeology, to prepare a Worker
Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP). The WEAP shall be submitted
to the City for review and approval. All
construction personnel and monitors
who are not trained archaeologists
shall be briefed regarding inadvertent
discoveries prior to the start of
construction activities. A basic
presentation and handout or pamphlet
shall be prepared in order to ensure
proper identification and treatment of
inadvertent discoveries. The purpose
of the WEAP training is to provide
specific details on the kinds of cultural
materials that may be identified during
construction of the Project and explain
the importance of and legal basis for
the protection of significant
archaeological resources. Each
worker shall also learn the proper
procedures to follow in the event that
cultural resources, tribal cultural
resources, or human remains are
uncovered during ground-disturbing
activities. These procedures include
work curtailment or redirection, and
the immediate contact of the site
Prior to
construction
activities
Developer /
Archaeologist
Less than significant
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-62
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
supervisor, tribal monitor and
archaeologist retained for the Project.

MM CR-4: Archaeological
Resources – Monitoring.

A qualified archaeologist shall be
retained to be present during initial
ground disturbance. Initial ground
disturbance is defined as the removal
of the upper two to eight feet below
ground of existing soil. The timing of
when cultural resource monitoring
(archaeological and Native American)
shall be required shall be outlined in
the Cultural Resource Monitoring and
Inadvertent Discovery Plan pursuant
to MM CR-2. More than one monitor
may be required if multiple areas
within the Project site are
simultaneously exposed to initial
ground disturbance causing
monitoring to be hindered by the
distance (more than 200 feet apart) of
the simultaneous activities. A qualified
archaeological principal investigator,
meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards,
shall oversee and establish monitoring
efforts as needed (increase, decrease,
or discontinue monitoring frequency)
based on the observed potential for
construction activities to encounter
cultural deposits or material. The
archaeological monitor will be
responsible for maintaining daily
monitoring logs.

In the event that potential prehistoric
or historical archaeological resources
(sites, features, or artifacts) are
During initial
ground disturbance
Developer /
Archaeologist
Less than significant
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-63
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
exposed during construction activities
for the project, all construction work
occurring within 100 feet of the find
shall immediately stop and a qualified
archaeologist must be notified
immediately to assess the significance
of the find and determine whether or
not additional study is warranted.

Depending upon the significance of
the find, the archaeologist may simply
record the find and allow work to
continue. If the discovery proves
significant under CEQA, additional
work such as preparation of an
archaeological treatment plan, testing,
data recovery, or monitoring may be
warranted. If Native American
resources are discovered or are
suspected, each of the consulting
tribes for the Project will also be
notified.

If human remains are discovered, no
further disturbance shall occur in the
affected area until the County Coroner
has made necessary findings as to
origin. If the County Coroner
determines that the remains are
In the event of
discovery
Developer /
Archaeologist
Less than significant
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-64
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
potentially Native American, the
California Native American Heritage
Commission shall be notified within 24
hours of the published finding to be
given a reasonable opportunity to
identify the “most likely descendant”.

The “most likely descendant” shall
then make recommendations and
engage in consultations concerning
the treatment of the remains.
(This mitigation measure was
identified as MM CR-1 in the Initial
Study. This mitigation measure has
been renumbered to MM CR-5 for
purposes of inclusion in the
Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program).

Would the Project disturb any human
remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
See MM CR-5 above (From Initial
Study)
See MM CR-5
above
See MM CR-5
above
Less Than Significant
IMPACT Category: Energy
Would the Project result in potentially
significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during
project construction or operation??
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Less Than Significant Mitigation not required
Would the project conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency??
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Less Than Significant Mitigation not required
IMPACT Category: Geology and Soils (Mitigation Measures brought in from Initial Study) Would the project directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
MM GEO-1: Paleontological
Resources Impact Mitigation
Program and Paleontological.

Prior to issuance of grading permit,
the Project proponent shall retain a
Prior to Grading
Permit
Developer /
Paleontologist
Less Than Significant
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-65
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
qualified paleontologist per the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
(2010) guidelines. The qualified
paleontologist shall prepare a
Paleontological Resources Impact
Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the
Project that shall be consistent with
the SVP (2010) guidelines and outline
requirements for preconstruction
meeting attendance and worker
environmental awareness training,
where paleontological monitoring is
required within the Project site based
on construction plans and/or
geotechnical reports, procedures for
adequate paleontological monitoring
and discoveries treatment, and
paleontological methods (including
sediment sampling for micro
invertebrate and micro vertebrate
fossils), reporting, and collections
management. A qualified
paleontological monitor shall be on
the Project site during initial rough
grading and other significant grounddisturbing activities (including augering) in areas underlain by
Pleistocene alluvial deposits and
below a depth of five feet below the
ground surface in areas underlain by
Holocene alluvium to determine if they
are old enough to preserve
scientifically significant
paleontological resources. No
paleontological monitoring shall be
necessary during ground disturbance
within artificial fill. In the event that
paleontological resources (e.g.,
fossils) are unearthed during grading,
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-66
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
the paleontological monitor shall
temporarily halt and/or divert grading
activity to allow recovery of
paleontological resources. The area of
discovery shall be roped off with a 50-
foot radius buffer. Once
documentation and collection of the
find is completed, the monitor shall
allow grading to recommence in the
area of the find.

IMPACT Category: Greenhouse Gas
Would the project generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the
environment?
The Project would result in significant
Project and Cumulative impacts to
Greenhouse Gas.

MM GHG-1: Commute Trip
Reduction. Upon a residential
dwelling unit being rented, the Project
Applicant or its designee shall notify
and offer to the prospective tenant, as
soon as it may be done, disclosure
materials describing available public
transit, ridesharing and non-motorized
commuting opportunities available in
the vicinity of the Project. Such
information shall be transmitted no
later than the finalization of a rental
contract. A draft of this disclosure
shall be submitted to the City of
Riverside Planning Division for review
prior to the issuance of the certificate
of occupancy.

Prior to Occupancy Residential
property owner
and/or property
management firm
Significant and
Unavoidable. A
Statement of Overriding
Considerations is
required prior to Project
approval
MM GHG-2: Telecommute. The
Project Applicant or its designee shall
install broadband infrastructure or
other communication technologies
that encourage telecommuting and
working from home. The Project
Applicant or its designee shall submit
documentation to the City Building
and Safety Division prior to
Prior to Occupancy Developer Significant and
Unavoidable. A
Statement of Overriding
Considerations is
required prior to Project
approval
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-67
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
occupancy.

MM GHG-3: Unbundle Residential
Parking Costs. The Project Applicant
or its designee shall provide
information to the residential property
owner and/or property management
firm about the benefits of providing
unbundled, or separate, residential
parking costs from property costs for
rental units, which allows those who
wish to purchase parking spaces to
do so at an additional cost.

Unbundled parking costs may
decrease vehicle ownership and,
therefore, result in a reduction in VMT
and GHG emissions. The Project
Applicant or its designee shall submit
documentation to the City Planning
Division prior to occupancy.

Prior to Occupancy Project Applicant Significant and
Unavoidable. A
Statement of Overriding
Considerations is
required prior to Project
approval
Would the project conflict with any
applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Less Than Significant Mitigation not required
IMPACT Category: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the Project create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accidental conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the
environment ?
MM HAZ-1: Decontamination of
Soil. During grading activities at the
former UST system area and around
one boring location the soil shall be
handled and mitigated in accordance
with South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule
1166 (VOC Emissions from
Decontamination of Soil) Mitigation
Plan. Petroleum impacted soil shall be
segregated from non-impacted soil
using the convention soil management
soil practices. However, petroleum
Prior to issuance of
building permit
Developer /
Contractor
Less Than Significant
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-68
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
impacted soil at greater depths shall
remain in place.

MM HAZ 2: Vapor Barriers. In
order to mitigate the past
contamination on the site related to
the Sears Auto Service Center, the
City building department shall ensure
that final construction drawings on the
Project reflect requirements from the
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board (SARWQCB).

Requirements from the SARWQCB
could include conventional vapor
barriers with passive sub-slab venting
incorporated into foundation design of
the proposed structures on the Project
site.

Prior to issuance of
building permit
Developer /
Contractor
Less Than Significant
For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
The Project would result in significant
Project and Cumulative impacts to Hazards
and Hazardous Resources related to Airport
land use.

MM HAZ-3: Airport Noise.

Prior to issuance of a building permit
for any residential building or unit, an
acoustical analysis shall be conducted
by a noise specialist meeting the
requirements set forth in Riverside
Municipal Code 16.08-175 B 5 to
confirm that the noise insulation
proposed in the final design is
sufficient to achieve interior noise
levels at or below 45 CNEL and
exterior noise levels at or below 65
CNEL. Interior noise attenuation
measures identified in said acoustical
analysis shall be incorporated into the
design of the residences, to the extent
such measures are necessary, to
ensure that interior noise levels are at
or below 45 CNEL. Measures may
include, but not be limited to,
upgraded building façade elements
Prior to issuance of
building permit
Developer /
Contractor
Significant and
Unavoidable. A
Statement of Overriding
Considerations is
required prior to Project
approval
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-69
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
(windows, doors, and /or exterior wall
assemblies) with Sound Transmission
Class (STC) rating of 35 or higher. If
the interior limit can be achieved only
with the windows closed, then the
building design shall include
mechanical ventilation that meets
California Building Code requirements.

Exterior noise attenuation measures,
which shall be unit/structure specific,
may include site design and building
layout and/or noise barriers sufficient
to achieve exterior noise levels at or
below 65 CNEL.

IMPACT Category: Land Use
Would the Project cause a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
The Project would result in significant
Project and Cumulative impacts to Land
Use and Planning related to Airport land use
policy.

There is no feasible mitigation
measures that can be applied.

Not applicable Not applicable Significant and
Unavoidable. A
Statement of Overriding
Considerations is
required prior to Project
approval
IMPACT Category: Noise
Would the Project result in 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?
MM NOI-1: Residential Interior
Noise. An interior noise analysis shall
be conducted by a Noise specialist.

Noise attenuation measures shall be
incorporated into the design of the
residences as outlined in the interior
noise analysis, to the extent such
measures are necessary to ensure
that interior noise levels are at or
below 45 CNEL. Measures shall
Prior to issuance of
building permit
Developer /
Contractor
Less Than Significant
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-70
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
include upgraded building façade
elements (windows, doors, and /or
exterior wall assemblies) with Sound
Transmission Class (STC) rating of 35
or higher. If the interior limit can be
achieved only with the windows
closed, then the building design shall
include mechanical ventilation that
meets California Building Code
requirements.

MM NOI-2: Commercial Exterior
Noise. Prior to issuance of a building
permit for any commercial structure,
an acoustical analysis shall be
conducted by a noise specialist
meeting the requirements set forth in
Riverside Municipal Code section

16.08-175 B 5 to confirm that the
noise insulation proposed in the final
design is sufficient to achieve exterior
noise levels at or below 65 CNEL in
any outdoor dining / flex space. Noise
attenuation measures identified in said
acoustical analysis shall be
incorporated into the design of the
commercial area, to the extent such
measures are necessary, to ensure
that exterior noise levels are at or
below 65 CNEL. Exterior noise
attenuation measures, which shall be
specific to the ultimate location of the
outdoor dining / flex space may
include site design and building layout
and/or noise barriers sufficient to
achieve exterior noise levels at or
below 65 CNEL.

Prior to issuance of
building permit
Developer /
Contractor
Less Than Significant
Would the Project result in generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Less Than Significant City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-71
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
groundborne noise levels? Mitigation not required
For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip of an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise level?
See MM NOI-1 and MM NOI-2 above. See MM NOI-1
and MM NOI2above.

See MM NOI-1
and MM NOI2above.

Less Than Significant
IMPACT Category: Population and Housing
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)?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Less Than Significant Mitigation not required
IMPACT Category: Public Services
Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for fire protection?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Less Than Significant Mitigation not required
Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Less Than Significant Mitigation not required
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-72
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
objectives for police protection?
Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for schools?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Less Than Significant Mitigation not required
IMPACT Category: Recreation
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?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Less Than Significant Mitigation not required
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?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Less Than Significant Mitigation not required
IMPACT Category: Transportation
Would the Project conflict with program
plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
The Project would result in less than
significant Project impacts.

However, Cumulative impacts to
Transportation would be significant and
unavoidable. Refer to Section 7.0 – Other
CEQA.

Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Significant and Unavoidable. A
Statement of Overriding
Considerations is
required prior to Project
approval
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-73
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
Would the Project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Significant and Unavoidable. A
Statement of Overriding
Considerations is
required prior to Project
approval
IMPACT Category: Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the Project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code Section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:

Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resource Code section
5020.1(k)?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable No Impact Mitigation not required
Would the Project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code Section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:

A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
MM TCR-1: Consultation. 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/
Prior to grading
permit issuance
Developer / City Less than significant
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-74
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resource Code section 5024.1;
in applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American Tribe?
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.

MM TCR-2: On call Project
Archaeologist. Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit, the Property
Owner/Developer shall provide a letter
from a County certified Archaeologist
and Paleontologist stating that the
Property Owner/Developer has
retained these individuals, and that the
Archaeologist and Paleontologist shall
be on call during all grading and other
significant ground-disturbing activities
in native sediments.

Prior to grading
permit issuance
Developer /
Archaeologist
Less than significant
MM TCR-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
In the event of
discovery
Developer /
Archaeologist
Less than significant
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-75
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
24 hours of discovery, the
consulting tribe(s) shall be notified
via email and phone. The developer
shall provide the city evidence of
notification to consulting tribes.

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
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-76
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
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
appropriately 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 Museum of
Riverside by default; and
d) At the completion of grading,
excavation, and grounddisturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report
shall be submitted to the City
documenting monitoring
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-77
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
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 consulting tribes.

MM TCR-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
Prior to grading Developer /
Archaeologist /
Native American
Monitors
Less than significant
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-78
DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
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.

IMPACT Category: Utilities and Service Systems
Would the Project require or result in the
relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or
stormwater drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunication facilities,
the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental
effect?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Less Than Significant Mitigation not required
Would the Project have sufficient water
supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Less Than Significant Mitigation not required
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?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Less Than Significant Mitigation not required
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?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Less Than Significant Mitigation not required
City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-79
Summary of Project Alternatives
The Project objectives allow for the analysis of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project. A range of reasonable alternatives, both on- and off-site, that would feasibly attain most of the basic Project objectives, while avoiding or substantially lessening the significant effects of the Project, must be analyzed per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, which identifies the parameters within which consideration and discussion of alternatives to a proposed project should occur. Each alternative must be capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the proposed project. The rationale for selecting the alternatives to be evaluated and a discussion of the “no project” alternative are also required, pursuant to Section 15126.6. This Draft EIR evaluates the following Alternatives: 1) No Project/No Demolition/Keep Existing Commercial Designation Alternative 2) Adaptive Reuse Alternative, 3) ALUC Consistent Alternative, and 4) Reduced Density/Intensity Alternative.

Table 1-F, Comparison of Alternatives Matrix, gives a summary of all Project alternatives considered in detail in the Draft EIR and identifies the areas of potential environmental effects per CEQA and ranks each alternative as less, same, or greater than the proposed Project with respect to each area.

Comparison of Alternatives Matrix
Environmental Issue
Alternative 1:

No Development/Keep
Existing Commercial
Designation
Alternative 2:

Adaptive Reuse to
Residential
Alternative 3:

ALUC Consistency
Alternative 4:

Reduced Density/Intensity
Cultural Resources
Project and Cumulative
Same – Alternative would not
require the demolition of the
existing structures. However,
modifications to the
structures would still be
required to bring them into
compliance with current
building and seismic codes to
a degree that would not result
in the preservation of a
historic resource Therefore,
impacts related to cultural
resources would be similar to
that of the proposed Project.

Same – Alternative would still
require modifications to a
degree that would not result
in the preservation of a
historic resource. Therefore,
cultural resource impacts
would be the same as the
proposed Project.

Same – Alternative would still
require demolition of historic
resources. Therefore, cultural
resource impacts would be
similar to the proposed
Project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Greater – The fully
commercial use of the site
Less – the uses under this
Alternative would most likely
Less – the uses under this
Alternative would most likely
Same – although the
residential and commercial
Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-80
Comparison of Alternatives Matrix
Environmental Issue
Alternative 1:

No Development/Keep
Existing Commercial
Designation
Alternative 2:

Adaptive Reuse to
Residential
Alternative 3:

ALUC Consistency
Alternative 4:

Reduced Density/Intensity
Project and Cumulative under Alternative 1 would
increase the GHG emissions
and further exceed
thresholds.
not result in GHG emissions
that would exceed standards.
not result in GHG emissions
that would exceed standards.
uses would be reduced by
this Alternative, there would
still be uses to generate
mobile source and other
emissions that would most
likely exceed thresholds.

Hazards and Hazardous
Material
Project and Cumulative
Same – Alternative would still
result in an inconsistency
determination with the
RCALUCP. Therefore,
hazards/hazardous material
impacts would be the same
as the proposed Project.

Same – Alternative would still
result in an inconsistency
determination with the
RCALUCP. Therefore,
hazards/hazardous material
impacts would be the same
as the proposed Project.

Same – Alternative would
propose uses consistent with
RCALUCP development
standards. As such, this
Alternative would be
consistent with RCALUCP
policies. However, use may
not be compatible with
existing surrounding sensitive
receptors. Therefore, hazards
/hazardous material impacts
would be similar to the
proposed Project.

Same – Alternative would still
result in an inconsistency
determination with the
RCALUCP. Therefore,
hazards/hazardous material
impacts would be the same
as the proposed Project.

Land Use
Project and Cumulative
Same – Alternative would still
result in an inconsistency
determination with the
RCALUCP and as such,
inconsistency with General
Plan land use objectives and
policies as they relate to
airports. Therefore, land use
and planning impacts would
be the same as the proposed
Project.

Same – Alternative would still
result in an inconsistency
determination with the
RCALUCP and as such,
inconsistency with General
Plan land use objectives and
policies as they relate to
airports. Therefore, land use
and planning impacts would
be the same as the proposed
Project.

Same – Alternative would
propose uses consistent with
RCALUCP development
standards. Because this
Alternative would be
consistent with the
RCALUCP, it would not result
in inconsistencies with
General Plan land use
objectives and policies as
they relate to airports.

City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-81
Comparison of Alternatives Matrix
Environmental Issue
Alternative 1:

No Development/Keep
Existing Commercial
Designation
Alternative 2:

Adaptive Reuse to
Residential
Alternative 3:

ALUC Consistency
Alternative 4:

Reduced Density/Intensity
However, use may not be
compatible with existing
surrounding sensitive
receptors. Therefore, land
use and planning impacts
would be similar to the
proposed Project.

Transportation
Cumulative
Greater – Under the existing
land use, the existing site
would generate approximately
1,326 more trips then that of
the proposed Project. Thus,
this Alternative would result in
similar cumulative traffic
impacts but Project-specific
impacts would be greater
than of the proposed Project.

Same – There would be less
traffic originating to and from
the Project area because of
reduced density and intensity.

However, cumulative traffic
impacts would remain similar
to the proposed Project.

Same – There would be less
traffic going to and from the
Project area because the uses
would be less intense. But
cumulative traffic impacts
would remain similar to the
proposed Project.

Same – There would be less
traffic originating to and from
the Project area because of
reduced density and intensity.

However, cumulative traffic
impacts would remain similar
to the proposed Project.

Environmentally Superior to
Proposed Project? No Yes, but to a lesser degree Yes, but to a lesser degree Yes, but impacts similar Meets Most of the Project
Objectives?
No
(0 of 5 Objectives Met)
Yes, but to a lesser degree
(3 of 5 Objectives Met)
No
(0 of 5 Objectives Met)
Yes, but to a lesser degree
(5 of 5 Objectives Met)
Section 1 City of Riverside
Executive Summary Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 1-82
Environmentally Superior Alternatives
The State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2), requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative. Of the alternatives evaluated above, the No Project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative with respect to reducing impacts created by the proposed Project. However, the beneficial impacts of the proposed Project would not be realized. The State CEQA Guidelines also require the identification of another environmentally superior alternative if the No Project alternative is selected as the environmentally superior alternative. The following four Alternatives were reviewed for consideration of the environmentally superior alternative.

Alternative 1: No Development/Keep Existing Commercial Designation, results in greater impacts than the proposed Project and does not meet any of the Project Objectives. As such, this Alternative is rejected from consideration.

Alternative 2: Adaptive Reuse, results similar impacts to the proposed Project but overall would result in less impacts than the proposed Project. The uses under this Alternative would most likely not result in GHG emissions that would exceed standards. . However, when compared to the proposed Project, this Alternative does not have the ability to lessen impacts to the historic resources so will result in similar impacts to that of the proposed Project. Further, this Alternative meets only 3 of the 5 Project Objectives and to a lesser degree. As such, this Alternative is rejected from further consideration.

Alternative 3: ALUC Consistency, results similar impacts to the proposed Project but overall would result in less impacts than the proposed Project since the uses under this Alternative would most likely not result in GHG emissions that would exceed standards. However, this Alternative does not meet any of the Project Objectives so is rejected from further consideration.

Alternative 4: Reduced Density/Intensity, results similar impacts to the proposed Project and meets all of the Project Objectives but to a lesser degree than the proposed Project because Alternative 4 would reduce the size of the commercial buildings and amount of residential units by approximately 25 percent. As such, this Alternative would still provide more housing than other Alternatives, which is a key objective. Hence, Alternative 4 is the environmentally superior alternative.

While the City of Riverside has examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project site, and Alternative 4 meets most of the Project objectives and is considered the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed Project, the degree of which Alternative 4 reduces impacts to GHG emissions and Transportation is minimal when compared to the proposed Project. Since Alternative 4 is proposing to implement residential uses on the site impacts to GHG and Transportation would still exceed existing levels and thus still create an impact.

Alternative 4, when compared to the proposed Project, would meet all of the basic Project Objectives found in Section 3.0 – Project Description of this Draft EIR but to a lesser degree because it fails to maximize the site location and surrounding features through site design and building placement since it offers a reduced density/intensity project; resulting in an increased demand for development at other sites in the area. Further, while this Alternative would capitalize on the City’s Smart Growth principals, it would do so to a lesser degree than the proposed Project by offering smaller commercial structures and fewer dwelling units. Lastly, while this Alternative would provide housing opportunities allowing the City to help meet its RHNA allocations, it would do so at a lesser degree than the proposed Project.

City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Executive Summary 1-83
Alternative 4 would result in essentially the same level of impacts as the proposed Project but would not meet all of the basic Project Objectives found in Section 3.0 - Project Description of this Draft EIR.

The proposed Project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts even after implementation of mitigation. Likewise, Alternative 4 (as well as Alternatives 1 through Alternative 3) will also result in similar significant unavoidable impacts. Therefore, none of the Alternatives will effectively lessen or avoid significant impacts that otherwise result from the proposed Project.

City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Introduction
2-1

2.0 Introduction

2.1 Purpose and Scope
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to assess the potential environmental effects of the Arlington Mixed Use Project (Project); which will increase the density of select property.

The basic purposes of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15002) are to:
 inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed activities;
 identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced;  prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible; and
 disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.

2.2 Authorization
This DEIR has been prepared by the City of Riverside (City) as “Lead Agency” in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 et. seq), the 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 proposed Project considered in this DEIR 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 Lead Agency, has determined that the Project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment; therefore, preparation of an EIR was required.

2.3 Lead and Responsible Agencies
CEQA defines a “lead agency” as the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. Other agencies, e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which also have some authority or responsibility to issue permits for projects, are designated as “responsible agencies.” Both the lead agency and responsible agencies must consider the information contained in the EIR prior to acting upon or approving a project. The City of Riverside is the lead agency for the Project. The City’s address is:

City of Riverside – Community & Economic Development Department Planning Division
3900 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92522
Contact: Brian Norton, Senior Planner
Entitlement actions to be considered by the City of Riverside as Lead Agency include a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Site Plan Review, and Tentative Parcel Map as described in Section 3.0 - Project Description of this DEIR.

Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Introduction Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR
2-2
Responsible agencies for the Project include, but may not be limited to the following:
 Federal Agencies
o None
 State Agencies
o None
 Regional Agencies
o State Water Resources Control Board
 City/Counties Agencies
o Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
o Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority

2.4 Project Applicant
The Project Applicant is:

Riverside Property Owner, LLC
12435 Park Potomac Avenue, Suite 200
Potomac, MD 20854
Contact: Jamie Chapman

2.5 CEQA Procedures
The basic purposes of CEQA are to:
• Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities;
• Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; • Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible; and
• Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved. (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15002)

2.5.1 Environmental Procedures
The EIR process typically consists of three parts: 1) the Notice of Preparation (NOP) including an Initial Study (IS) if applicable, 2) Draft EIR (DEIR), and 3) Final EIR (FEIR). Pursuant to Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared an Initial Study for the Project in order to determine if the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. Based upon the analysis contained within the Initial Study, the City concluded that the Project may cause potentially significant impacts and that an EIR should be prepared.

This document provides for the DEIR stage of the EIR process. As the "Lead Agency" for the purposes of CEQA compliance, the City of Riverside has the principal responsibility for processing and approving the Project. As set forth in Section 15021 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as "Lead Agency", the City of City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Introduction
2-3
Riverside also has the duty to avoid or minimize significant environmental damage where feasible.

Furthermore, Section 15021(d) states that, “CEQA recognizes that in determining whether and how a project should be approved, a public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors and in particular the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian.” Other public agencies (i.e., Responsible and Trustee Agencies) that may use this EIR in their decision-making or permit processing, will consider the information in this EIR along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process.

In accordance with CEQA, the public agencies will be required to make findings for each environmental impact of the Project that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. If the Lead Agency determines the benefits of the proposed Project outweigh unavoidable significant environmental effects, the agency will be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations stating the reasons supporting their action notwithstanding the Project’s significant environmental effects.

After the public review is over for the DEIR, then the City will prepare the FEIR which will include responding to any written comments received during the 45-day public review period on the DEIR. The FEIR will be a separate document.

2.5.2 NOP Comment Letters
Pursuant to Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Initial Study, and a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this DEIR were distributed to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties via overnight or mail delivery and recipients were requested to provide responses within the 30-day public review period. The public review period for the Initial Study/NOP began on June 15, 2023 and ended on July 14, 2023. Additionally, a notice advising on the availability of the NOP was posted by the Riverside County Clerk on June 15, 2022.

Table 2.0-A, Written Comments Received During the NOP Comment Period below summarizes the written comments received and the issues raised. None of the comments received had the effect of changing the issue areas to be discussed in the DEIR. Copies of the comment letters, Initial Study, NOP, and NOP distribution list are included in Appendix A.

Table 2.0-A, Written Comments Received During the NOP Comment Period Commenter /
Date of Letter Summary of Comment
Location in DEIR (or IS) in which
Comment is Addressed
Inland Empire
Biking Alliance
(IEBA)
July 14, 2023
Suggest the Draft EIR review bikes as a
traffic reduction solution, ensure existing
bike facilities remain, that project
consider curb separated bike facilities,
suggests project driveways constitute a
design hazard, request ungated
bike/pedestrian access point at Granada
Avenue, that the Draft EIR include a study
of a bike boulevard improvement to
Granada Avenue, and inclusion of signage
along the offsite footprint area be
included during construction
 Section 5.12 – Traffic and Transportation
Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Introduction Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR
2-4
Table 2.0-A, Written Comments Received During the NOP Comment Period Commenter /
Date of Letter Summary of Comment
Location in DEIR (or IS) in which
Comment is Addressed
Native American
Heritage
Commission (NAHC)
June 16, 2023
NAHC provided a standard comment
letter outlined the requirements to comply
with Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18
requiring consultation with California
Native American tribes that are
traditionally and culturally affiliated with
the geographic area of the proposed
Project.
 Section 5.13 – Tribal Cultural Resources
Beverly Phillips
June 1, 2023
Concerned that the Project would increase
traffic
 Section 5.12 – Traffic and Transportation
Because the Project is considered to be of statewide, regional, or area wide significance, per Section 15206(b) (2)(E) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a scoping meeting was held July 12, 2023 via ZOOM, an online platform. No comments were received on the IS/NOP during the scoping meeting.

2.6 Documents Incorporated by Reference
Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines permits and encourages an environmental document to incorporate, by reference, other documents that provide relevant data. The documents summarized below are incorporated by reference, and the pertinent material is summarized throughout this Draft EIR, where that information is relevant to the analysis of potential impacts of the Project. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at, or can be obtained through, the City of Riverside Planning Department.

2.6.1 City of Riverside General Plan 2025
The City of Riverside 2025 General Plan (GP 2025) was adopted in 2007. The GP is a long-range plan designed to control and regulate growth in the City and to maintain the quality of the human and natural environment through 2025. The GP is the City’s planning “constitution,” or a blueprint for development, and is the single-most important policy document in guiding land use and development decisions within the City (GP 2025 FEIR, p. 2-5). To that end, the GP contains goals and policies that serve as the planning framework for the City in addition to providing direction for City operations and programs and serves as a guide to public and private decision-making. The GP 2025 includes the following required elements: Land Use and Urban Design , Circulation and Community Mobility , Housing , Arts and Culture, Education, Public Safety, Noise, Open Space and Conservation, Air Quality, Public Facilities and Infrastructure, Parks and Recreation. The GP 2025 is available online at https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/city-plans/general-plan-0.

City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Introduction
2-5

2.6.2 Final Program Environmental Impact Report for City of Riverside General Plan 2025
The City of Riverside General Plan 2025 Final Program Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2004021108 (GP 2025 FEIR) was certified in 2007 and provided a first-tier analysis of the potential environmental effects of the adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan, adoption and implementation of the comprehensive update of the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code, amendment to the Noise Code, adoption and implementation of the Magnolia Avenue Specific Plan, as well as the adoption and implementation of the Citywide Design and Sign Guidelines available online at https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/zoning-code-and-regulations. The GP 2025 FEIR is available online at https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/city-plans/general-plan-0.

2.6.3 City of Riverside Municipal Code
The City’s Municipal Code complements GP 2025. The Municipal Code, which contains among other ordinances, the City’s Zoning Code (Title 19), is a mechanism to implement and enforce the goals, objectives, policies, and programs articulated in GP 2025. Many of the potential environmental concerns considered in the GP FEIR are adequately addressed through the application of regulations contained in the Municipal Code. The Municipal Code is available online at http://www.riversideca.gov/municode/.

2.6.4 General Plan Update Phase I for Updated Housing and Public Safety Elements and Environmental Justice Policies
A comprehensive update of the General Plan is anticipated to kick off in late 2023 to guide the development of the City through the year 2050. This update will be conducted in phases. The Phase I General Plan Update (GPUI) has already taken place which includes an updated 6th Cycle Housing Element (2021-2029), updated Public Safety Element, and Environmental Justice Policies and was approved in October 2021. The GPUI is available online at https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/cityplans/general-plan-0.

2.6.5 Final Program Environmental Impact Report for City of Riverside General Plan Update Phase I
The City of Riverside Phase I General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2021040089 (GPUI FEIR) was certified by the Riverside City Council on October 5, 2021. The GPUI FEIR is a programmatic EIR that does not identify specific development projects that could occur as a result of approval of the Housing and Public Safety Element Updates and the new Environmental Justices policies. (GPUI FEIR, p. 1-5.)
The Housing and Public Safety Elements are citywide planning documents associated with GP 2025.

One of the components of the Housing Element Update evaluated in the GPUI FEIR is a rezoning program that involves amending the Zoning Code and Specific Plans to change the zone of multiple sites identified for future housing and mixed-use development, referred to as Opportunity Sites.

Environmental Justice Policies are an additional component of the project evaluated in the GPUI FEIR.

GPUI FEIR assessed a total of 460 parcels totaling 581 acres for rezoning, Specific Plan and General Plan Land Use amendments to accommodate the City’s 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligation of at least 18,458 new residential units over an 8-year planning period (2021-2029).

Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Introduction Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR
2-6
The Final EIR evaluated identified sites for a variety of zoning and Land Use changes that generally increased allowed development capacities to promote the development of new residential and mixed use projects, resulting in a potential net increase of 31,175 dwelling units.

The GPUI FEIR did not evaluate specific development densities or intensities for individual sites; rather, for sites proposed for Mixed Use Zones and General Plan designations. The GPUI FEIR assumed that 33 percent of sites would develop with nonresidential uses, 33 percent would develop with residential uses, and 34 percent would develop with a mix of residential and nonresidential uses. Of the 34 percent that would develop with a mix of uses, it was further assumed that the resulting development would comprise 80 percent residential uses and 20 percent nonresidential uses by floor area. Residential floor area was then converted to an estimated number of dwelling units by assuming an average unit size of 1,050 square feet. The GPUI FEIR is available online at https://riversideca.gov/cedd/planning/cityplans/general-plan-0 City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Project Description 3-1
Project Description
This Draft EIR is being prepared to analyze the potential environmental effects of the construction and implementation of the proposed Arlington Mixed Use project including all on- and off-site improvements, and associated discretionary actions, including but not limited to City of Riverside project number PR2022-001252 which includes a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Site Plan Review, Tentative Parcel Map, and Certificate of Appropriateness, all of which are herein collectively referred to as the “Project.” All figures associated with this section start of page 3.0-12.

3.1 Project Location
The City of Riverside (City) is located in the northwestern portion of Riverside County. The City is bounded on the north by the Cities of Jurupa Valley, Colton, and Grand Terrace and the unincorporated community of Highgrove, to the east by the City of Moreno Valley, to the south by the unincorporated community of Woodcrest, and to the west by the Cities of Corona and Norco as reflected in Figure 3.0- 1, Vicinity Map. The Project site is located within Section 33, Township 2 South and Range 5 West of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, identified on the Riverside West, California USGS 7.5 Quadrangle Map as identified in Figure 3.0-2, USGS Topographical Map.

The Project entails, an approximately 17.43 gross acre and 17.37 net acre site (after dedication of 0.05 acres along Arlington Avenue for road right-of-way), located at the northeast corner of Arlington Avenue and Streeter Avenue as depicted in Figure 3.0-3, Aerial Site Boundary Map. The Project site consists of assessor parcel number (APN) 226-180-015-1; specifically located at 5261 Arlington Avenue, Riverside CA 92506. Project parcel throughout this document is based upon net acreage of 17.37 acres. The Project also includes approximately 1.5 miles of offsite impacts located within roadway rightof-way as reflected in Figure 3.0-4, Aerial Site Boundary with Offsites.

3.2 Environmental Setting
The proposed Project consists of an existing fully developed site, amongst an urbanized area and is completely surrounded by existing development. No natural habitats are located on site. Hence, no habitat to support listed or protected species has been identified. The Project site is relatively flat with an average elevation of approximately 787 feet above mean sea level gently sloping to the northwest.

3.3 Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation The Project site has a General Plan Land Use Designation of C – Commercial and a zoning designation of CG – Commercial General as reflected in Figure 3.0-5, Existing General Plan Land Use Designation and Figure 3.0-6, Existing Zoning Designation.

3.3.1 Surrounding Land Uses
The area surrounding the Project site is developed and urbanized with a variety of land uses, including commercial, medium-high density residential, high-density residential, office, and public facilities. Refer to Table 3.0-A, Surrounding Land Uses, for the existing land usage and general plan land use and zoning designations for the surrounding area.

Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Project Description Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 3-2
Table 3.0-A, Surrounding Land Uses
Location
Existing
Land Usage
General Plan Land Use
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Project Site
Existing Vacant Sears
Department Store and
Auto Center
C – Commercial CG – CommercialGeneral
North
Residential Uses
Office Uses
Vacant
O – Office
PF – Public Facilities
C – Commercial
CG – Commercial
General
R- 1- 7000 – Single
Family Residential
East
Residential Uses
Office Uses
MDR – Medium Density
Residential
O - Office
R- 1- 7000 – Single
Family Residential
O – Office
South
(Across Arlington
Avenue and
California Avenue)
Commercial and
Office Uses
C – Commercial
HDR – High Density
Residential
CR – Commercial Retail
CG – Commercial
General
O – Office
West
(Across Streeter
Avenue )
Residential, Office,
and Commercial Uses
MDR – Medium Density
Residential
O – Office
C – Commercial
PF – Public Facilities
CG – Commercial
General
O – Office
R- 1- 7000 – Single
Family Residential

3.3.2 Airport Land Use
The Project site is located within the Riverside County Airport Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (RCALUCP) and is approximately one mile from the airport runway (GE); specifically the Riverside Municipal Airport (RMA). A majority of the Project site is located within the RMA Land Use Compatibility Zone B1 with smaller portions located with Zones C and D as shown in Figure 3.0-7, Riverside Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones. The proposed Project is required to be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission for its consistency with the RCALUCP. (RCALUCP). On January 12, 2023, ALUC determined the Project to be inconsistent with the RCALUCP.

3.4 Project Characteristics

3.4.1 Project Land Use Applications
The proposed Project includes the following entitlement applications for consideration by the City of Riverside:

General Plan Amendment (GPA): Proposes to amend the general plan land use designation from C - Commercial to MU-V - Mixed Use-Village as per Figure 3.0-8, Proposed General Plan Land Use.

City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Project Description 3-3
Rezone (RZ): Proposes to rezone the site from CG - Commercial General to MU- V - Mixed Use-Village as per Figure 3.0-9, Proposed Zoning.

Tentative Parcel Map No. 38638 (TPM): Proposes to subdivide the 17.37 net acre site into 2 parcels for financing, conveyance, and phasing purposes. Parcel 1 will consist of

14.44 net acres for residential development and Parcel 2 will consist of 2.93 net acres for commercial-retail development as per Figure 3.0-11, Tentative Parcel Map.

Certificate of Appropriateness (COA): Proposal to demolish the existing vacant Sears structures. The Sears structures were built in 1964 and have been deemed eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 3, National Register for Historic Places, and the City of Riverside Historical Landmarks.

3.4.2 Existing Site Conditions
The existing Project site includes two existing commercial buildings located on the 17.37 net acre parcel that are associated with the former Sears Department Store and Automotive Service Center constructed in the mid1960’s1 as shown in Figure 3.0-12, Existing Site Conditions. These structures are eligible for listing in the National Register for Historic Places, California Register for Historic Resources, and the City of Riverside Historical Landmarks.

The existing site provides six access points: two along Arlington Avenue and four along Streeter Avenue.

1. Per Cultural Resource Technical Assessment prepared by Dudek dated May 2023 (DUDEK-A).

Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Project Description Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 3-4
Concrete masonry unit wall [CMU wall]) along site frontage and light poles for security lighting. The eastern portion of the site is composed of a surface parking area with ornamental trees and security lighting. The eastern boundary abuts existing residential development where a 6-foot block wall divides the site from the neighboring properties. Access from Streeter Avenue consists of two full-access driveways, leading to the existing Auto Center area, Sears building loading dock, and includes additional surface parking with ornamental trees and security lighting. The northern boundary abuts existing residential development, commercial offices, and a vacant parcel where a 6-foot block wall divides the site from neighboring properties.

The Project site has remained vacant since February 2020, when Sears ceased operations.

Occasionally, the vacant structure is utilized for the seasonal store “Spirit Halloween.” (PE) and the site’s parking lot was briefly used in 2020 as a COVID drive-thru testing site. Currently, the Project site surface parking area along the southeast corner has been used by the Riverside Certified Farmers Markets every Friday morning (RUHS). After the site ceased being utilized as a COVID testing site , the Sears building was burglarized and vandalized. Building systems that have been removed/stolen or damaged is rampant throughout the interior of the building. Hence, the building is no longer operational in its present condition. Since this incident, the Project site has been under 24-hour security.

3.4.3 Proposed Project
Demolition
The proposed Project would include the demolition of the existing vacant 192,139 sf former Sears buildings and all appurtenances per Figure 3.0-13, Demolition Plan. Sears Auto Center is a 13,713 sf structure. The 178,426 sf Sears structure consists of a 90,526 sf basement and 87,900 sf ground level.

Project Attributes
The Project proposes development of approximately 576,203 sf of residential and commercial-retail uses as reflected in Figure 3.0-10 and Table 3.0-B, Building Square Footage Summary. The Project will include several amenities including: onsite leasing office, tuck-under garages, carports, public dog park, outdoor resort style pool and spa, fitness area, clubhouse, shade structures with barbeques and tables, multi-use turf areas, outdoor gaming and play spaces. The project also proposes a variety of rooftop and carport solar panels with a fixed tilt of 10 degrees with no rotation, and an orientation of 90 degrees.

Table 3.0-B, Building Square Footage Summary
Building Type Building No. Dwelling Units Square Footage Residential
Garden Style3-Story – Type III 1 30 39,805
Garden Style3-Story – Type III 2 30 39,805
Garden Style3-Story – Type I 3 18 21,000
Garden Style3-Story – Type II 4 20 25,339
Garden Style3-Story – Type II 5 20 25,339
City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Project Description 3-5
Table 3.0-B, Building Square Footage Summary
Building Type Building No. Dwelling Units Square Footage Garden Style3-Story – Type II 6 20 25,339
Garden Style3-Story – Type II 7 20 25,339
Garden Style3-Story – Type II 8 20 25,339
Garden Style3-Story – Type II 9 20 25,339
Garden Style3-Story – Type III 10 30 39,805
Garden Style3-Story – Type III 11 30 39,805
Garden Style3-Story – Type III 12 30 39,805
Garden Style3-Story – Type III 13 30 39,805
2-Story – Type ATownhome 14 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 15 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 16 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 17 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 18 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 19 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 20 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 21 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 22 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 23 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 24 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 25 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 26 5 9,615
2-Story – Type ATownhome 27 5 9,615
Residential Subtotal 388 546,474
Clubhouse/Fitness/Leasing N/A 4,409
Commercial
Grocery N/A N/A 20,320
Retail N/A N/A 5,000
Commercial Subtotal N/A 25,320
TOTALS 388 576,203
Residential
The residential component of the proposed Project includes development of 27 residential buildings providing for 546,474 sf of residential use and one 4,409 sf Clubhouse/Fitness/Leasing building. The Clubhouse/Fitness/Leasing building will be publicly accessible while the residential portion will be Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Project Description Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 3-6
accessible via gates. The residential buildings will allow for a total of 388 dwelling units and be divided between 13 3-story garden style buildings providing for 318 dwelling units and 14 2-story townhome buildings providing for 70 dwelling units. The unit mix will be comprised of 18 studio units, 152 onebedroom units, 28 two-bedroom units, and 42 three-bedroom units. As reflected in Figure 3.0-10, buildings 1-13 would be 3-Story garden style residential structures. Buildings 14-27 would be 2-Story townhomes. The 3-Story garden style buildings would introduce 318 residential units, while the 2-Story townhomes would introduce 70 residential units. The 3-Story Garden Style residential buildings will offer varying exterior styles. Proposed residential elevations floor plans are reflected in the following figures:
 Figure 3.0-14A, Proposed Elevations [Garden Style-3-Story Type I Front & Left]  Figure 3.0-14B, Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type II Front]  Figure 3.0-14C, Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type III Rear, Left & Right]  Figure 3.0-14D, Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type III Front]  Figure 3.0-15, Proposed Elevations [Garden Style3-Story Type III-Rear, Left & Right]  Figure 3.0-16A, Proposed Elevations [Townhomes2-Story Type A-Enhanced]  Figure 3.0-16B, Proposed Elevations [2-Story Type A-All Stucco V1]  Figure 3.0-16C, Proposed Elevations [2-Story Type A-All Stucco V2]  Figure 3.0-17A, Proposed Floor Plans [Garden Style Plans 1 of 23-Story Type I]  Figure 3.0-17B, Proposed Floor Plans [3-Story Type II]  Figure 3.0-18, Proposed Floor Plans [Garden Style Plans 2 of 23-Story Type III]  Figure 3.0-19, Proposed Floor Plans [Townhome Plans2-Story Type A] These exterior styles will contain the following four main Mid-Century Modern style elements: clean lines, color palettes, solid simple clean box, and flat roof a similar color palette to unify the buildings throughout the Project site and provide homage to the existing structure. Each residential building will include horizontal lines, box framing, breeze block, stonework, and stamped metal façade. Signage will pay homage by incorporating a font similar to that of the Sears structures. The residential area will also provide a 4,036 sf dog park, pedestrian promenade, picnic, pool and spa, shade structures, barbeques and tables, outdoor gaming and play spaces, multi-use turf areas, and play areas. The dog park will be accessible through a gate on the residential side and accessible to the public via a gate in the commercial area.

Commercial-Retail
The proposed Project will provide 25,320 sf of commercial-retail use by way of two commercial-retail buildings in the southeastern portion of the site along Arlington Avenue which will also incorporate similar clean lines, color palettes, clean box, flat roof and signage that utilizes a font similar to the Sears structures. A 5,000 square feet (sq. ft.) multi-tenant retail speculative pad would be located in the southwestern corner of the project site with an adjoining outdoor dining/flex space that could include a 24-hour operation. This area of the site also proposes a 20,320 sq. ft. grocery store pad as reflected in Figure 3.0-20, Proposed Elevations ALDI Right & Rear and Figure 3.0-21, Proposed Elevations ALDI Left & Front. The Project is projected to have up to 51 employees.2

2. Source: County of Riverside General Plan Appendix E-2: Socioeconomic Buildout Assumptions and Methodology, Table E-5: Commercial Employment Factors, p. 3, dated April 11, 2017, available at https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/general_Plan_2017/appendices/Appendix%20E2_April%202017.pdf?ver=2017-10-23-153612-743, accessed November 14, 2022.

Based on employee generation rate of 500 square feet per employee of commercial retail (25,320 sf ÷ 500 sf/employee = 51 employees).

City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Project Description 3-7
The proposed grocery store is expected to operate between the hours of 9am and 9pm seven days a week. The store is estimated to include approximately 20 employees; scheduling 3 to 7 employees per shift. Store deliveries are expected to take place once per day, by a WB67 truck from the Moreno Valley warehouse located southwest of Redlands Boulevard and State Route 60. There will also be limited small truck deliveries for beverages and bakery items.

Parking
As shown in Figure 3.0-22, Proposed Parking Plan, the Project will provide parking areas for residential occupants, residential guests, and commercial-retail users. The plan provides for a total of 815 parking spaces across the entirety of the site. A total of 683 parking spaces will be dedicated to residential uses and includes 594 standard stalls, 20 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) accessible stalls, 66 electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) stalls, and 3 ADA/EVCS stalls. A total of 132 parking stalls will be dedicated to commercial-retail uses which includes 111 standard stalls, 7 ADA accessible stalls, 12 EVSC stalls, and 2 ADA/EVCS stalls. Additionally, the site will provide 41 stalls for bicycle parking.

Open Space
The Project will include open space throughout the proposed development. Specifically, within the private residential areas per City requirements, the Project should provide 19,400 square feet of open space and the public/common areas should also provide 19,400 square feet of open space. The Project will include 36,502 sf of private open space associated with each of the residential building areas, as well as 57,071 sf in the public/common areas. The public common open space includes areas such as the dog park, pool, and clubhouse. There are 72 existing ornamental, non-native trees located throughout the site. The Project will remove these trees and instead provide a landscape plant palette consistent with Riverside Citywide Design Guidelines for Water Efficient Landscape and Irrigation Design Guidelines, amended January 2019 (RCDG) as well as plants consistent with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commissions Landscaping Near Airports: Special Considerations for Preventing or Reducing Wildlife Hazards to Aircraft (ALUC-A) as reflected in the following figures:
 Figure 3.0-23, Conceptual Landscape Plan
 Figure 3.0-24, Landscape Planting Plan
 Figure 3.0-25, Plant Palette [1 of 2]
 Figure 3.0-26, Plant Palette [2 of 2]
The residential portion of the Project site will be surrounded by a 6 foot high tubular steel fence, 6 foot high block wall, or combination block wall/steel fence as reflected in Figure 3.0-27, Wall and Fence Plan. The Project includes details for walls and fences within the site and around the perimeter of the site as well as sign plans, fountain wall, dog park gates, vehicular gates, and access gates for residential access as reflected in Figure 3.0-28, Wall and Fences Details [1 of 2], and Figure 3.0-29, Wall and Fence Details [2 of 2].

Lighting
The proposed Project will include exterior building lights and pedestrian lighting for safety and security purposes within parking lots, along pathways, and on buildings as identified in Figure 3.0-30, Proposed Lighting Plan. All light sources will be shielded so that the light is directed away from streets and adjoining properties. Further, all light fixtures will be required to be consistent with the City of Riverside Municipal Code – Title 19, Zoning Code for illumination. Existing streetlights are located along Streeter Avenue and Arlington Avenue within the right-of-way.

Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Project Description Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 3-8
Construction
Construction is anticipated to take approximately 23 months and will be built in two phases with the first phase being commercial parcel, and the second phase being the residential parcel as reflected in Table

3.0-C, Phase 1 Estimated Construction Schedule and Table 3.0-D, Phase 2 Estimated Construction Schedule, below. Grading of the Project site will include 18,376 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 18,127 CY of fill. This activity results in a net export of approximately 249 CY. When import or export is within 2 percent of the overall grading values, a site is considered to be balanced. Since export will be less than 2 percent of the overall grading value of the Project, the site is considered to be balanced. Construction is anticipated to commence July 2024 and be completed in 2026.

Table 3.0-C, Phase 1 Estimated Construction Schedule
Construction Activity Start Date End Date Total Working Days Demolition July 1, 2024 July 26, 2024 20
Grading July 29, 2024 August 9, 2024 10
Building Construction August 12, 2024 June 27, 2025 230 Paving June 9, 2025 June 27, 2025 15
Architectural Coating June 9, 2025 June 27, 2025 15
Table 3.0-D, Phase 2 Estimated Construction Schedule
Construction Activity Start Date End Date Total Working Days Grading January 1, 2025 January 28, 2025 20
Building Construction January 29, 2025 May 26, 2026 345 Architectural Coating December 3, 2025 May 26, 2026 125 Paving January 29, 2025 March 25, 2025 40
Grading would be accomplished with scrapers, motor graders, water trucks, dozers, and compaction equipment. It is anticipated Building materials would be off-loaded and installed using small cranes, boom trucks, forklifts, rubber-tired loaders, rubber-tired backhoes, and other small- to medium-sized construction equipment as needed.

3.4.4 Vehicular Circulation and Site Access
Regional access to the Project Site is provided via State Route 91 (SR-91) from Madison Avenue ramps located approximately 0.8 miles to the south, as well as Arlington Avenue ramps located 1.5 miles to the south. Local access is provided via Arlington Avenue and Streeter Avenue. Arlington Avenue is currently constructed to its ultimate half-section width as an arterial along the Project’s frontage from the Project’s western boundary to the Project’s eastern boundary. Specifically, Arlington Avenue is classified as a 120 feet (ft) arterial street with 6 lanes east of Streeter Avenue and an 88 ft arterial street with 4 lanes west of Streeter Avenue. Also, Streeter Avenue is currently constructed to its ultimate half-section City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Project Description 3-9
width as an 88 ft arterial along the Project’s frontage from the Project’s southern boundary to the Project’s northern boundary.

The proposed Project site will leave in place four of the six existing full access driveways: two along Arlington Avenue and two along Streeter Avenue. Primary site access for the residential area will be from Streeter Avenue with secondary access from Arlington Avenue. The existing driveway will be enhanced by the addition of decorative pavement and an art installation. Primary access for commercial area will be from Arlington Avenue with secondary access from Streeter Avenue. The following lists the proposed improvements and is reflected in Figure 3.0-31- Proposed Transportation Improvements:

Driveway and Roadways
 Driveway #1 – Streeter Avenue and Granada Avenue Intersection o Install a stop control on the westbound approach (the Project driveway) and construct a westbound shared left-through-right turn lane.
 Driveway #2 – Streeter Avenue and El Molino Avenue Intersection o Install a stop control on the westbound approach (the Project driveway) and construct a westbound shared left-through-right turn lane and modify the existing median to provide 225-feet of storage for the southbound left turn lane.
 Driveway #3 – California Avenue and Arlington Avenue Intersection  install a stop control on the southbound approach (the Project driveway), construct a southbound right turn lane and construct a westbound right turn lane.  Driveway #4 - Along Arlington Avenue
o Construct a shared left-through-right turn lane on the southbound approach (the Project driveway), construct a westbound right turn lane, improve the existing traffic signal infrastructure with Audible Push Buttons, install a new traffic signal pole on the north leg, widen Project driveway (north leg of intersection), relocate the existing traffic signal pole located on the north leg to accommodate new drive aisle width and sidewalk/curb-andgutter locations, and modify existing raised median to provide 150-foot eastbound left turn pocket.
 Streeter Avenue and Arlington Avenue Intersection
o Improve the existing traffic signal infrastructure with Audible Push Buttons and cut back medians on the north, east, and west legs to allow for a clear travel path for pedestrians at all approaches and purchase a new traffic signal controller for this intersection.  Streeter Avenue from southern Project boundary to northern Project boundary o Improve curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping as necessary for site access and consistent with City standards.
 Arlington Avenue from western Project boundary to eastern Project boundary o Dedicate 5-feet of pavement from the existing curb-and gutter (60-feet from centerline to edge of ROW) on Arlington Avenue and improve curb and gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping as necessary for site access and consistent with City standards.  California Avenue, Streeter Avenue, and Arlington Avenue o Modify the traffic signal to implement a 130-second cycle.

Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Project Description Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 3-10
o Streeter Avenue/Sierra Street South – stripe a northbound and southbound Class II bike lane on the east and west sides of Streeter Avenue.
o Streeter Avenue/Sierra Street North – stripe a northbound and southbound Class II bike lane on the east and west sides of Streeter Avenue.

Visitor parking will be provided within the entry plaza prior to entering the residential area and several areas throughout the residential portion for residential guests. The residential portion of the Project site will be gated. Primary access to the residential portion of the site will be acquired from Streeter Avenue via two access gates along both sides of the entry driveway. A second and third access gate will be provided from the commercial area. The internal road network is designed to be at least 20 feet wide to allow for emergency vehicle access. The driveway north of the existing Bank of America on Streeter Avenue will serve as egress for future residents and as an emergency access. All entrances and exits will be gate controlled.

3.4.5 Pedestrian Circulation, Bike Lanes and Site Access As shown in Figure 3.0-32, Pedestrian Circulation, the Project will provide several pedestrian pathways to facilitate the movement of pedestrians within the site. These pathways will be lit to ensure security. The Project site will also provide pedestrian linkage to the surrounding area by providing connection to the existing sidewalks along Streeter Avenue and Arlington Avenue. Additionally, the Project would stripe a Class II bike lane along Streeter Avenue, from Central Avenue to Arlington Avenue.

3.4.6 Infrastructure and Utilities
As the Project is an existing developed site with existing vacant structures, utilities are provided within and around the site. Several of the existing utility facilities on-site will be removed and replaced or relocated as reflected in Figure 3.0-33, Existing and Proposed Utility Plan, to provide connection to existing facilities within the rights-of-way. The site is served by Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) for electric as discussed below and Southern California Gas for natural gas.

Water
Public water service for both potable and non-potable/recycled water would be provided by RPU. There is an existing 8-inch water line exists in Streeter Avenue and an existing 12-inch line in Arlington Avenue.

Project will connect to the existing lines in both Streeter and Arlington via 10-inch meter and backflow devices.

Sewer
Wastewater treatment for the project would be provided by the City Public Works Department at the Riverside Regional Water Quality Control Plant. The proposed project would connect to an existing 8- inch sewer line located on Streeter Avenue and a 21-inch sewer line in Arlington Avenue through 8-inch sewer laterals.

City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Project Description 3-11
Stormwater Facilities
The proposed Project site will be paved with landscaping throughout. The proposed Project will relocate existing on-site storm drain system and provide new on-site drainage patterns and be designed to incorporate catch basins and biotreatment BMPs and landscaping features to redirect, capture, and treat surface runoff from new development prior to entering the existing storm drain system through connection to the existing 30-inch and 33-inch lines in Streeter Avenue, as reflected on Figure 3.0-34, Proposed Drainage & Grading Plan.

Electricity
RPU provides electrical services to the Project site. All electrical facilities would connect to existing connections in Arlington Avenue and Streeter Avenue. There are existing power poles located along Arlington Avenue located within the right-of-way. An additional circuit will be required to meet the Project’s estimated electric demand. This will require approximately 1.5 miles of offsite trenching to connect to existing RPU electric facilities. Trenching will occur within existing ROW and will include approximately 0.5 miles in Streeter Avenue from Arlington Avenue to Central Avenue; approximately 0.5 miles in Central Avenue from Streeter Avenue to Hillside Avenue; and approximately 0.5 miles in Hillside Avenue from Central Avenue to Mountain View Avenue. It is anticipated that trenching may be as deep as 7 to 8 feet below ground. There is some existing conduit and vaults within this alignment. The Project will be required to provide areas of new 6.5-inch conduit and approximately 10 electric vaults sized at 8 feet by 14 feet in order to provide the additional circuit and connect to existing facilities. RPU staff reviewed the proposed project and with the addition of the offsite extensions adequate electrical facilities exist to serve the Project. With these improvements, RPU has sufficient capacity to serve the Project site.

3.4.7 School District
The Riverside Unified School District will serve the Project site. The project will be responsible for impact fees assessed by the school district.

3.4.8 Off-Site Improvements
All offsite improvements are related to electric facilities and associated roadway improvements described in Section 3.4.4 as described above. The offsite area encompasses approximately 13 acres.

A small 0.15 acres portion of this offsite improvement area is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Criteria Cell number 621, Subunit 1 – Santa Ana River South as reflected in Figure 3.0- 35, Offsite Biological Resources.

3.4.9 Project Objectives
Per Section 15124 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR needs to include a statement of the objectives of a project which will help the City develop a reasonable range of alternatives. The Objectives need to outline the general purpose of the Project and are as follows:

Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Project Description Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 3-12
Primarily, provide quality, multi-family housing on an existing underutilized site, to help the City meet the State’s allocated 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) housing unit numbers, as well as the City’s overarching self-prescribed housing unit numbers.

Place housing near a transit corridor to reduce residential vehicle miles traveled and associated congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.

Place housing near existing commercial uses to encourage pedestrian connectivity and to reduce vehicular usage and associated impacts.

Provide compatible mixed-use development contributing to the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Establish a mixed-use development that will provide a land use transition between the existing commercial Hardman Center and the residential developments surrounding the project site.

3.5 Discretionary Actions and Approvals
The Draft EIR serves as an informational document for use by public agencies, the public, and decision makers. This Draft EIR discusses the impacts of development pursuant to the proposed Project and related components and analyzes Project alternatives. This Draft EIR will be used by the City of Riverside and responsible agencies in assessing impacts of the proposed Project. The following approvals and permits are required from the City of Riverside to implement the proposed Project:
 General Plan Amendment (GPA) - to amend the existing General Plan Land Use designation of Commercial to Mixed-Use Village;
 Rezone (RZ) - to change the current zoning designation of Commercial General to Mixed-Use Village;
 Site Plan Review - for an approximately 576,203 square foot mixed use development including 388 dwelling units on approximately 17.37 net acres.
 Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) - to subdivide 17.37 net acre site into 2 parcels for financing, conveyance, and phasing purposes; and
 Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) - to demolish the existing vacant Sears structures, which have been found to be eligible for listing as a historic resource.  Certification of the EIR - with the determination that the EIR has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA.

Other non-discretionary actions anticipated to be taken by the City at the staff level as part of the proposed Project include:

Approvals and permits that may be required by other agencies include:

Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) - A NPDES permit from the to ensure that construction site drainage velocities are equal to or less than the preconstruction conditions and downstream water quality is not worsened City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Project Description 3-13
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) - Consistency Determination Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority – Joint Project Review Determination
Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-1 Vicinity Map
Source: Riverside County GIS, 2020.

H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\vicinity_map\vicinity_map.aprx; Map created 06 Dec 2022 San Bernardino Co.

Riverside Co.

Orange Co.

Prado
Lake Basin
Lake
Mathews
Santa Ana River

ONTARIO
CORONA
NORCO

RIVERSIDE

PROJECT
SITE
^
MORENO
VALLEY
SAN

BERNARDINO
COLTON
RIALTO

UPLAND RANCHO

CUCAMONGA

REDLAND
PERRIS

FONTANA
JURUPA
VALLEY
EASTVALE ·|þ}210
·|þ}18
·|þ}60
·|þ}259
·|þ}91
·|þ}60
·|þ}74
§¨¦10
§¨¦215
§¨¦15
§¨¦215
§¨¦15
£¤66
£¤66
Map
Area
0 2 4 6
Miles
I
Figure 3.0-2 USGS Topographic Map
LEGEND
Project Site
H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\usgs_topo_map\usgs_topo_map.aprx; Map created 06 Dec 2022; virginiaw Arlington Mixed Use
0 1,000
I
2,000 3,000
Feet
Sources: ESRI / USGS 7.5min Quads:

RIVERSIDE WEST

Figure 3.0-4 Existing General Plan Land Use Designation

SIERRA ST

ARLINGTON AVE CAPISTRANO WAY

STREETER AVE

GRANADA AVE

EL MOLINO AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

ARLINGTON AVE

SIERRA ST

ARLINGTON AVE CAPISTRANO WAY

STREETER AVE

GRANADA AVE

EL MOLINO AVE

CALIFORNIA AVE

ARLINGTON AVE

SIERRA ST
LEGEND
City of Riverside Zoning selection
Residential Zones
R-1-7000
Commercial/Industrial Zones
O
CR
CG
H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\zoning.aprx; Map created 06 Dec 2022 Arlington Mixed Use
0 150
I
300 450
Feet
Sources: Riverside Co. GIS, 2020;
City of Riverside General Plan
Land Use, 2021.
6 H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\existing_site_conditions\existing_site_conditions_7-31.aprx Map created 01 Aug 2024 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024 Figure 3.0-12 Existing Site Conditions Arlington Mixed Use
Legend
Trees scheduled
for removal
Trees
NTS
H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\proposed_demolition\proposed_demolition.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024.

Arlington Mixed Use Project
Figure 3.0-13 Proposed Demolition Plan
NTS
H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\building_elevations\building_elevations.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024
Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-14A Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type I]
NTS
Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024
Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-14B Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type II - Front] H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\building_elevations\building_elevations.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 NTS
Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024
Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-14C Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type II - Rear, Left & Right] H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\building_elevations\building_elevations.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 NTS
Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024
Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-14D Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type III - Front] H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\building_elevations\building_elevations.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 NTS
H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\building_elevations\building_elevations.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024
Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-15 Proposed Elevations [3-Story Type III - Rear, Left & Right] NTS
Figure 3.0-16A Proposed Elevations [2-Story Type A Enchanced] Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024
Arlington Mixed Use
NTS
\\brkpan01.webb.lan\WO4\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\building_elevations\building_elevations.aprx Map created 01 Aug 2024 Figure 3.0-16B Proposed Elevations [2-Story Type A-AII Stucco V1] Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024
Arlington Mixed Use
NTS
H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\building_elevations\building_elevations.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\building_elevations\building_elevations.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 Figure 3.0-16C Proposed Elevations [2-Story Type A-All Stucco V2] Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024
Arlington Mixed Use
NTS
H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\proposed_floor_plan\proposed_floor_plan.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024.

Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-19 Proposed Floor Plans [2-Story Type A]
NTS

H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\wall_fence_plan\wall_fence_plan.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024.

Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-28 Wall and Fence Details [1 of 2]
NTS
H:\2022\22-0172\GIS\PRO\wall_fence_plan\wall_fence_plan.aprx Map created 31 Jul 2024 Source: Architects Orange March 13, 2024.

Arlington Mixed Use
Figure 3.0-29 Wall and Fence Details [2 of 2]
NTS

4-1
City of Riverside Section 4.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant

4.0 Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant
CEQA provides that a Draft EIR shall focus on all potentially significant effects created by the Project on the environment, discussing the effects with emphasis in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. Effects dismissed in an Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) as insignificant and unlikely to occur need not be discussed further in the Draft EIR unless information inconsistent with the finding in the Initial Study is subsequently received. The full Initial Study for this Project is found in Appendix A.

4.1 Effects Found Not to be Significant During Preparation of the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
Section 21100(c) of the Public Resources Code states that an EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a Project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR. Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines adds, “Such a statement may be contained in an attached copy of an Initial Study.” The Initial Study prepared for the Arlington Mixed Use Development Project (Project), (Appendix A) concluded that the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts or impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of standard mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, as necessary, to the following issue areas or thresholds within those issue areas as discussed below. The specific issues listed are not discussed further within the body of the Draft EIR. The following is a summary of the discussions from the Initial Study.

4.1.1 Aesthetics
Threshold: Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista
Scenic vistas are the view of an area that is visually or aesthetically pleasing. Development projects may potentially impact scenic vistas in two ways: 1) directly diminishing the scenic quality of the vista, or 2) by blocking the view corridors or “vistas” of scenic resources. The proposed Project site is not a scenic resource. Vista points can be found throughout the City both from urban areas toward the hills and from wilderness areas looking on to Riverside. Long-distance views of natural terrain and vegetation can be found throughout the La Sierra/Norco Hills, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park, and Box Springs Park.

Like most of the development in the City, the proposed Project will be developed within the valley floor.

As such, the Project site is not part of the City’s view corridors. Thus, the implementation of the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (IS, p. 51).

Threshold: Damage Scenic Resources
The Project site does not contain any rock outcroppings and will remove the existing non-native tree species. The Project will be required to incorporate a landscape plant palette consistent with Riverside Citywide Design Guidelines for Water Efficient Landscape and Irrigation Design Guidelines, amended January 2019 (RCDG) as well as plants consistent with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commissions Landscaping Near Airports: Special Considerations for Preventing or Reducing Wildlife Hazards to Aircraft. There are no state scenic highways within the City that could potentially be 4-2
Section 4.0 City of Riverside
Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR impacted by the proposed Project. However, Arlington Avenue has been designated as a Scenic Boulevard and Scenic Parkway. Regardless, the Project is not located along a state scenic highway.

Thus, impacts from Project implementation would not substantially damage scenic resources related to trees, rock outcroppings, or state scenic highways. (IS, pp. 51-52).

Threshold: Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare The Project site is an existing vacant development, and as such, existing streetlights are located along Streeter Avenue and Arlington Avenue within the roadway right-of-way. The proposed Project would add additional exterior building lights and exterior lighting for safety and security purposes within parking lots, along pathways, and on buildings. All light sources would be shielded so that the light is directed downward and away from streets and adjoining properties. Further, all light fixtures would be required to be consistent with the Riverside Municipal Code (MC) Title 19 - Zoning Code for illumination. Although the Project would add new sources of potential light and glare (i.e. new lights and windows), the Project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views because the existing Project site and surrounding areas are fully developed and urbanized with existing lighting. Thus, the Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (IS, p. 52).

4.1.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources
Threshold: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to Non-Agricultural Use
The Project is located within an urbanized area. The Project site was previously used for the Sears department store so the site is an existing vacant developed lot with buildings, parking lots, and pavement. The area surrounding the Project site is also fully developed with a variety of urban land uses such as commercial, office, public facilities, single-family residential, medium-high density residential and high density residential. Additionally, as shown in the City’s 2025 General Plan, Figure OS-2 Agricultural Suitability map, the Project site is located in an area designated as Urban and Built-Up Land.

According to the California Department of Conservation (CDC) California Important Farmland Finder Map, the Project site does not support Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Furthermore, since the surrounding areas do not support farmland, implementation of the proposed Project would not affect off-site farmland. Thus, the Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. (IS, p. 53).

Threshold: Conflict with Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use or a Williams Act Contract
The site is currently zoned CG - Commercial General. The Project proposes to rezone the site to MU-V - Mixed Use-Village. The Project site is an existing vacant development and does not support farmland or agriculture uses. The Project site is not located in an area designated as a Williamson Act Preserve or Contracted Land. Thus, the Project would not create a conflict with existing agricultural zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. (IS, p. 53).

Threshold: Conflict with Existing Zoning or Cause Rezoning of Forest Land, Timberland, or Timberland Zoned for Timberland Production Forest land is defined as land supporting at least 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions that allow for management of one or more forest resource, 4-3
City of Riverside Section 4.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant including timber. There are no areas within City limits that are designated for forestland or timberland and the City of Riverside has no forestland that can support 10 percent native tree cover nor any timberland. Thus, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. (IS, p. 54).

Threshold: Result in Loss of Forest Land or Conversion of Forest Land to Nonforest Use There is no designated forestland on or adjacent to the Project site or within the City. Thus, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (IS, p. 54).

Threshold: Involve Other Changes in Existing Environment Resulting in Conversion of Farmland to Non-agricultural use or Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest use
The Project site and surrounding area are not located within an agricultural use area and do not support designated farmland or forestland. Thus, the Project would not result in changes in the existing environment that could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use. (IS, p. 54).

4.1.3 Air Quality
Threshold: Result in Other Emissions (Such as Those Leading to Odor) Adversely Affecting Substantial Number of People
The California Air Resources Board developed an Air Quality and Land Use Handbook to outline common sources of odor complaints. The sources of odors include sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, and petroleum refineries. (CARB-B). Odor impacts during Project operation will be minimal because the land uses proposed on the Project site are not included on CARB’s list of facilities that are known to be prone to generate odors. Potential sources of operational odors generated by the Project would include disposal of miscellaneous refuse. Consistent with City requirements, all Project generated refuse is required to be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with solid waste regulations, thereby precluding substantial generation of odors due to temporary holding of refuse on-site. Moreover, construction-source odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would not result in persistent impacts that would affect substantial numbers of people. Thus, the Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. (IS, p. 56).

4.1.4 Biological Resources
Threshold: Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on Any Species Identified as a Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species
The Project Site is within an urbanized area that is surrounded by existing development. Within the offsite area of impact for improvements, a 0.15-acre portion is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Criteria Cell number 621, Subunit 1 – Santa Ana River South. However, the 0.15-acre portion of this offsite impact area which extends into the southeastern region of MSHCP Criteria Cell 621 is characterized as a paved portion of the Hillside Avenue right-of-way and the area is completely surrounded by existing residential development and 4-4
Section 4.0 City of Riverside
Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR power grid facility. Further, this area is not located within the northeastern region of Criteria Cell 621 where conservation is identified. The 0.15-acre of developed land will be temporarily impacted as a result of infrastructure improvements proposed within the offsite impact area right-of-way extending into Criteria Cell 621, but the proposed impacts within this offsite area would not conflict with the reserve design goals, Existing Core A or the Santa Ana River. Nonetheless, the Project went through a Joint Project Review (JPR) by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and a determination indicating the Project is consistent with the MSCHP was made in June 2023.

No other portion of the Project site is located within a MSHCP criteria cell, narrow endemic plant species area, criteria area, or sensitive plant species survey area. Furthermore, no state or federally listed threatened or endangered plant species were detected or are expected to occur onsite. Additionally, no other California Native Plant Society (CNPS), special-status plants, or species of local concern were observed onsite. There were no sensitive vegetation communities listed by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) documented within or adjacent to the Project site. Further, the Project site does not occur within a predetermined MSHCP Survey Area for the burrowing owl, amphibians, or mammals and no state or federally listed threatened or endangered wildlife species were detected or are expected to occur onsite. Additionally, no other special status wildlife species, or species or local concern were observed or expected to occur onsite. No natural habitats are located on site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1 will ensure that no nesting birds, regardless of their listing status, will be impacted through compliance with CDFG Code Section 3503 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

MM BIO-1: Nesting Birds. Prior to issuance of grading, should tree and/or vegetation removals be required during the nesting/breeding season (between February 1st and August 31st,), a preremoval nesting bird survey shall be required. If construction is proposed a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey(s) no more than three (3) days prior to initiation of grading to document the presence or absence of nesting birds within or directly adjacent (100 feet) to the Project Site. The survey(s) shall focus on identifying any raptors and/or bird nests that are directly or indirectly affected by construction activities. If active nests are documented, species specific measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest. At a minimum, grading in the vicinity of a nest shall be postponed until the young birds have fledged. The perimeter of the nest setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with stakes and flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel and activities restricted from the area. A survey report by a qualified biologist verifying that no active nests are present, or that the young have fledged, shall be submitted to the City of Riverside for review and approval prior to initiation of grading in the nest-setback zone. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. A final monitoring report of the findings, prepared by a qualified biologist, shall be submitted to the City of Riverside documenting compliance with the CDFG Code. Any nest permanently vacated for the season shall not warrant protection pursuant to the CDFG Code.

Thus, with implementation of MM BIO-1, the Project would not result in substantial adverse effects, 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (IS, pp. 56-58).
4-5
City of Riverside Section 4.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant Threshold: Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on Any Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community
The Project site is an existing developed site located in an urbanized area that does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Thus, the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (IS, pp. 58-59).

Threshold: Have a Substantial Effect on State or Federally Protected Wetlands There are no federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) on-site or within proximity to the Project site.

Further, the Project site does not contain any wetlands or jurisdictional resources regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), CDFW or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Thus, the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (IS, p. 59).

Threshold: Interfere Substantially with Movement of any Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Corridor or Impede the use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites
The Project site does not represent a regional wildlife movement corridor and provides no cover, food, and no natural unrestricted water courses that would facilitate regional wildlife movement onsite and is not located in a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) designated core, extension of existing core, non-contiguous habitat block, constrained linkage or linkage area intended to protect lands for wildlife movement. The Project site is completely surrounded by high density residential/ mixed use retail development and high traffic roads. Thus, the proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (IS, p. 59).

Threshold: Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources, such as a Tree Preservation Policy or Ordinance The General Plan 2025 includes policies to ensure that future development would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Objectives and policies that relate to biological resources include the following:

Objective OS-5: Protect biotic communities and critical habitats for endangered species throughout the General Plan Area.
 Policy OS-5.2: Continue to participate in the MSHCP Program and ensure all projects comply with applicable requirements.
 Policy OS-5.3: Continue to participate in the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Habitat Conservation Plan including collection of mitigation fees. 4-6
Section 4.0 City of Riverside
Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR The Project applicant shall be required to pay the SKR fees in accordance with County of Riverside Ordinance 663.10 and City of Riverside MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fees (LDMF), established by MC Section 16.72.040. Further, the Project site is an existing development and does not contain any biological resources. Through payment of applicable fees, the Project will not conflict with any of the 2025 General Plan policies listed above. The City’s Municipal Code Section 13.25.020 establishes guidelines for removal, trimming and trenching around trees in City rights-of-way. (MC.) The project does not propose to remove or plant any trees within the City’s rights-of-way. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. (IS, pp 59-60).

Threshold: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan
The Initial Study found that the Project Site falls within the boundaries of two Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs): the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conversation Plan (MSHCP) and the Stephens Kangaroo Rat (SKR) HCP. Because a small portion of the offsite footprint associated with the electrical conduit extension is located within Criteria Cell 621, the Project went through a Joint Project Review (JPR) by the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and determination indicating the Project is consistent with the MSCHP was made in June 2023.

Since the area of the offsite electrical conduit extension is located completely under an existing street, this area does not support riparian, riverine, fairy shrimp and vernal pool habitats and no species associated with these habitat types are present on the site. Therefore, since no MSHCP resources were identified within the area of Cell 621, nor on any other part of the Project, a MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report is not warranted.

The Project will pay the SKR preservation fee at the time of grading permits. Thus, the Initial Study determined that with implementation of mitigation measure MM BIO-1, the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (IS, pp. 60-62).

4.1.5 Cultural Resources
Threshold: Disturb any Human Remains, Including Those Interred Outside of Formal Cemeteries
The Initial Study determined there to be no known cemeteries located on the Project site or along the off-sites. Therefore, the Project would comply with regulatory requirements for the treatment of Native American human remains pursuant to California Health and Safety Code regulations Sections 57051 and 7054, and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, These regulations would require all work to halt if human remains are found and would require archaeologist and city to be contained to provide protection measures. Implementation of mitigation measures MM CR-1 will further ensure impacts to human remain are less than significant.

MM CR-1: Human Remains. If human remains are discovered, no further disturbance shall occur in the affected area until the County Coroner has made necessary findings as to origin. If 4-7
City of Riverside Section 4.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant the County Coroner determines that the remains are potentially Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified within 24 hours of the published finding to be given a reasonable opportunity to identify the “most likely descendant”. The “most likely descendant” shall then make recommendations and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains (California Public Resources Code 5097.98).

Through compliance with existing regulations and implementation of mitigation measure CR-1, impacts with regard to disturbing human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries will be less than significant. Therefore, this impact will not be analyzed in the EIR. Therefore, impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (IS, p. 63).

4.1.6 Geology and Soils
Threshold: Direct or Indirect Effect Involving Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault
There are no Alquist-Priolo zones in the City. Several large active fault systems, occur in the region surrounding the Project site such as; Whitter-Elsinore, San Jacinto, and the San Andreas. However, the Project site is located approximately 11.9 miles east of the Whitter-Elsinore Fault zone, 10.9 miles west of San Jacinto Fault zone, and 17.5 miles west of San Andres Fault zone so the potential for fault rupture or seismic shaking is very low. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with all California Building Code (CBC) regulations. Thus, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of known earthquake fault. Therefore, impacts are less than significant less than significant impacts. (IS, pp. 64- 65).

Threshold: Direct or Indirect Effect Involving Ground Shaking Zone The Project site is located on the northern portion of the Riverside sub-block. Due to the Project site being approximately 10 to 17 miles away from fault zones, as mentioned above, ground shaking hazards caused by earthquakes can occur that have the potential to cause moderate to intense ground shaking.

However, the proposed Project would be required to comply with CBC regulations. Thus, the Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. (IS, p. 65).

Threshold: Direct or Indirect Effect Involving Ground Failure/Liquefaction According to the Initial Study the Project Site is located in an urbanized area and the general topography of the Project Site is flat. The Initial Study found that the Project’s potential of liquefaction to be low.

Conformance with the CBC and recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation, the Project is not anticipated to cause potential substantial adverse effects directly or indirectly, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. (IS, p. 65).

Threshold: Direct or Indirect Effect Involving Landslide Risk The Project site is located in an urbanized area with generally flat topography and is not located in an area prone to landslides. Because the site is relatively flat and not close to significant slopes, the potential for earthquake-induced landslides to occur at the site is considered very low. Thus, the Project 4-8
Section 4.0 City of Riverside
Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR is not anticipated to directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including landslides. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. (IS, p. 66)
Threshold: Result in Substantial Soil Erosion or the Loss of Topsoil The Project site is flat but erosion and loss of topsoil could occur as a result of Project construction.

However, the Project will be required to comply with the State and federal requirements regarding the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) establishing erosion and sediment controls for construction activities. The Project is also required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. Additionally, with the erosion control standards for which all development activity must comply (Title 18), the Grading Code (Title 17) requires the implementation of measures designed to minimize soil erosion (MC). Thus, through compliance with state and federal requirements as well as with Titles 18 and 17 the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (IS, p. 65).

Threshold: On- or Off-site Landslide/ Lateral Spreading/Subsidence/Liquefaction or Collapse
According to the Initial Study the Project Site is located in an urbanized area and the general topography of the Project Site is flat. The Project Site is not located in an area prone to landslides. Properties involved in the proposed improvements and adjacent properties are generally flat and have a low potential for landslides to occur. The Initial Study found that the Project’s potential of liquefactioninduced lateral spread is considered remote because the site has low liquefaction potential. Therefore, lateral spreading is not anticipated Thus, the Project is not 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. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (IS, pp. 66-67).

Threshold: Expansive Soils
A majority of the Project site is classified as low to medium in expansion potential. Since soils have some expansive potential, all design and construction shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation. Thus, through compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation report, applicable provisions of the City’s Subdivision Code Title 18, and the CBC with regard to expansive soils, the Project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (IS, p. 67).

Threshold: Septic Tanks
The Project site is an existing development located within an urbanized area. The Project will connect to and be served by existing sewer infrastructure. The Project does not propose the use of a septic system.

Thus, soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater is not applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. (IS, p. 67). 4-9
City of Riverside Section 4.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant Theshold: Unique Paleontological Resource Or Site Or Unique Geologic Feature The Initial Study determined that portions of the Project site and surrounding area are considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity. With Implementation of mitigation measure MM GEO-1 below will reduce potential Project-related impacts to unique paleontological resources and/or sites.

MM GEO-1: Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program and Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the Project proponent shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) guidelines. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the Project that shall be consistent with the SVP (2010) guidelines and outline requirements for preconstruction meeting attendance and worker environmental awareness training, where paleontological monitoring is required within the Project site based on construction plans and/or geotechnical reports, procedures for adequate paleontological monitoring and discoveries treatment, and paleontological methods (including sediment sampling for microinvertebrate and microvertebrate fossils), reporting, and collections management. A qualified paleontological monitor shall be on the Project site during initial rough grading and other significant grounddisturbing activities (including augering) in areas underlain by Pleistocene alluvial deposits and below a depth of five feet below the ground surface in areas underlain by Holocene alluvium to determine if they are old enough to preserve scientifically significant paleontological resources.

No paleontological monitoring shall be necessary during ground disturbance within artificial fill.

In the event that paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor shall temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery shall be roped off with a 50-foot radius buffer.

Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor shall allow grading to recommence in the area of the find.

Thus, with implementation of mitigation measure MM GEO-1, the Project will not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Therefore, impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (IS, pp. 67-68).

4.1.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or Environment Through Routine Transport/Use/ Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Based on the Initial Study the proposed Project may include routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during demolition and construction of the Project. However, construction activities would occur in accordance with all applicable local standards adopted by the City of Riverside, as well as state and federal health and safety requirements intended to minimize hazardous materials risk to the public, such as Cal/OSHA requirements, the Hazardous Waste Control Act, the California Accidental Release Protection Program, and the California Health and Safety Code. Additionally, a Hazardous Material Business Emergency Plan has already been adopted and implemented for the existing operations on-site. During operation, residential use is anticipated to have low potential for use of hazardous materials. Non-residential would be required to compliance with all applicable local, State, and federal laws. Additionally, both Federal and State governments require all businesses that handle more than a specified number of hazardous materials to submit a business plan to regulating agency. 4-10
Section 4.0 City of Riverside
Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Specifically, any new business that meets the specified criteria must submit a full hazardous materials disclosure report. Thus, because the Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal and state laws related to the transportation, use, storage and response to upsets or accidents that may involve hazardous materials, it would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (IS, pp. 69-70).

Threshold: Vicinity of a School
The Initial Study found there are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the Project site. The schools nearest the site are: Jefferson Elementary located approximately 0.35 miles southwest of the Project site, Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic School located 0.39 miles north of the Project site, and Sierra Middle School located 0.51 miles northeast (GE). As such, there are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the Project site., Thus, the Project site would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (IS, pp. 71-72).

Threshold: Hazardous Materials Site
The Initial Study determined Project site is not included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.25. Thus, the Project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (IS, p. 72).

Threshold: Impair Implementation of or Physically Interfere with an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
The Project may include improvements to adjacent streets that might result in temporary road closures.

However, implementation of the proposed Project will not interfere with evacuation or emergency response plans as all local roadways would remain open during Project construction and operation.

Construction activities occurring within the Project Site would comply with all conditions, and the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would not impair or physically interfere with an emergency response plan or evacuation plan. (IS, pp. 72-73).

Threshold: Wildland Fires
The Project site is not identified as being in a very high fire hazard severity zone according to the Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the State Responsibility Area Map produced by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Additionally, the Project site is not located within the City’s moderate, high, or very high hazard rating area. As such, the Project site will not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. (IS, p. 73).

4.1.8 Hydrology/Water Quality
After circulation of the IS/NOP documents, the water quality basins were revised to instead provide subterranean storm drain facilities. Because the Project site’s infiltration rates are so low, the Project has been authorized to utilize Modular Wetlands as a form of stormwater treatment. Storm water will be conveyed via underground pipes to Modular Wetlands located throughout the Project site. where storm water will be captured and treated in underground chambers before being conveyed to the existing storm drain facilities in Streeter Avenue. This system meets all regulatory requirements for storm water treatment and does not change any of the findings within the Initial Study document. An Updated 4-11
City of Riverside Section 4.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan was prepared by PSOMAS approved October 2023 (PSOMAS-C), as is included in Appendix A1 of this Draft EIR.

Threshold: Violate Any Water Quality Standards Or Waste Discharge Requirements Or Otherwise Substantially Degrade Surface Or Ground Water Quality
During construction, potential threats to surface and ground water quality associated with the short-term grading and construction activities include discharges of construction-related sediment and hazardous materials (e.g., fuels). During operations potential pollutants discharged to storm drains and downstream water bodies resulting from long-term occupancy and operations of the proposed project include litter, trash, and debris; oil, grease, metals, vehicle hydrocarbons; and sediments, nutrients, pesticides, and fertilizers from landscaped areas. The Project site is tributary to Santa Ana River Reach 3. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Santa Ana Region (RWQCB) provides regulatory oversight of water quality in the Groundwater Management Zones (GMZs). To ensure that the Project construction activities do not impair water quality of downstream receiving waters, and because the total land disturbance area is greater than 1 acre, the Applicant will obtain coverage under the statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities (i.e., Construction General Permit), which requires preparation of an effective Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or SWPPs by a certified Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) and implemented on the Project Site by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD), with annual reporting and monitoring requirements and enforcement by the RWQCB.

During operations potential pollutants discharged to storm drains and downstream water bodies resulting from long-term occupancy and operations of the proposed project include litter, trash, and debris; oil, grease, metals, vehicle hydrocarbons; and sediments, nutrients, pesticides, and fertilizers from landscaped areas. The Project site is tributary to Santa Ana River Reach 3. The Project will include post-construction stormwater treatment where stormwater will be integrated into the site landscaping and pre-treated through biotreatment with modular wetlands. Through compliance with existing regulations that address construction and operational-phase discharges, project impacts will be less than significant. (IS, pp. 73-75).

Threshold: Decrease Groundwater Supplies Or Interfere Substantially With Groundwater Recharge Such That The Project May Impede Sustainable Groundwater Management Of The Basin
The Project site does not use on-site groundwater or support groundwater wells on-site. The existing Project site is developed with 99 percent impervious surfaces so provides minimal groundwater recharge. Thus, the Project will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. (IS, p. 75).

Threshold: Result In Substantial Erosion Or Siltation On-Or-Off-Site Based on the Initial Study, construction activities potential for substantial erosion is minimized through the implementation of a SWPPP during construction and catch basins and biotreatment BMP’s post construction. As such the proposed Project would not result in a substantial change in drainage patterns 4-12
Section 4.0 City of Riverside
Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR of the Project site that would cause substantial erosion or siltation, nor substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (IS, p. 76).

Threshold: Substantially Increase The Rate Or Amount Of Surface Runoff In A Manner Which Would Result In Flooding On-Or-Off-Site
Based on the Initial Study, the proposed Project will increase the pervious areas of the site. since the site is currently 99 percent impervious. Post development runoff during the 10-year and 100-year storm events would be reduced from current conditions. Since volumes will decrease the Project will improve current flow conditions. As such the Project will not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or-off-site. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. (IS, p. 76).

Threshold: Exceed capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems The Initial Study found that Project will result in a reduction of peak flows and volumes. As such the Project will not 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. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. (IS, pp. 76-77).

Threshold: Impede or redirect flood flows
The Project site is located in “Zone X” and will incorporate an internal drainage system that would still connect to existing storm drains within the Public right-of-way along Streeter and Arlington Avenue.

Since the Project site is an existing vacant developed site with two structures and parking lot, the Initial Study found that implementation of the Project would not introduce additional impervious area. Thus, the Project is not expected to impede or redirect flood flows as a result of such actions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (IS, p. 77).

Threshold: In Flood Hazard, Tsunami, Or Seiche Zones, Risk Release Of Pollutants Due To Project Inundation
Initial Study found that the Project is not in a flood hazard zone, seiche zone, or tsunami zone. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (IS, pp. 77-78).

Threshold: Conflict With Or Obstruct Implementation Of A Water Quality Control Plan Or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
The Initial Study found that the local water quality control plan (Basin Plan) outlines the regulatory programs of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which address ground and surface water quality. The RWQCB requires NPDES permits, construction general permits, storm sewer system permit for post construction BMPs. The Project applicant would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP during construction and provide the required post-construction storm water quality treatment, leading to no conflicts or obstructions with the Basin Plan. Thus, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (IS, p. 78). 4-13
City of Riverside Section 4.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant

4.1.9 Land Use Planning
Threshold: Physically Divide an Established Community
The Project site is surrounded by office and commercial uses to the north; medium-density residential and office uses to the east; commercial and high-density residential uses to the south; and mediumdensity residential, office, and commercial uses to the west. Further, the Project does not propose any new roadways that could physically divide the existing community. Thus, the Project would not divide an established community. (IS, p. 79).

4.1.10 Mineral Resources
Threshold: Loss of a Known Mineral Resource Valuable to the Region and the Residents of the State
According to the Initial Study, the Project site is not located in, nor is it adjacent to, a locally important mineral resource recovery site so is not anticipated to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. (IS, p.79).

Loss of Locally Important Mineral Resource Delineated on a local General Plan, Specific Plan, or other Land Use Plan
The Project site is located in an area with no known mineral resources of local or state importance.

Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of available resources. (IS, p. 79).

4.1.11 Population and Housing
Threshold: Displace People or Housing Necessitating Construction or Replacement Housing
The Project site is an existing vacant commercial development. Hence, no housing units would be displaced as a result of Project construction. Thus, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (IS, p. 81).

4.1.12 Transportation
Threshold: Increase Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature or Incompatible Uses
The Initial Study determined the proposed Project’s internal road network would be designed to comply with the City’s development review process including review for compliance with all applicable fire code requirements for construction and access to the site. Project access does not include new travel lanes outside of the Project’s footprint and has been designed in conformance with the City’s engineering and fire department standards. Additionally, the Project would continue to utilize four of the six existing driveways. As a result, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses. (IS, p. 84). 4-14
Section 4.0 City of Riverside
Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Threshold: Result in Inadequate Emergency Access
The Project will leave in place four of the existing full access driveways: two along Arlington Avenue and two along Streeter Avenue. All project access improvements have been designed in conformance with City engineering and fire department standards for emergency access and circulation. and all local roadways would remain open during Project construction and operation. The design of Project access and internal circulation routes, as well as the size and location of fire suppression facilities (e.g., hydrants and sprinklers), would be subject to City standards and conditions of approval. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would not Result in inadequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant. (IS, p. 85).

4.1.13 Utilities and System Services
Thershold: Comply with Federal, State, and Local Management and Reduction Statutes and Regulations related to Solid Waste
Based on the Initial Study, California cities and counties are required to achieve waste diversion goals.

The Project must comply with the City’s waste disposal and CALGreen requirements. Therefore, compliance with City waste disposal and CALGreen would ensure compliance with federal, state, and local management and reduction statues. Thus impacts regarding compliance solid waste regulations would be less than significant. (IS, p. 88).

4.1.14 Wildfire
Threshold: Substantially Impair an Adopted Emergency Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
According to the Initial Study, the Project site is not located in a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or designated as a very high, high, or moderate hazard severity zone by the City. Further, the Project will not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan so impacts would be less than significant. (IS, p. 88).

Threshold: Expose Project Occupants to Pollutant Concentrations from Wildfire or Spread of Wildfire Due to Slope, Prevailing Winds, and other Factors Exacerbated
The Project site is not located within a SRA, or a very high fire, high or moderate hazard severity zone and the Project site has no steep slopes and is not located on or adjacent to affected lands that would exacerbate wildfire risk. Thus, the Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. (IS, pp. 88-89).

Threshold: Require the Installation or Maintenance of Associated Infrastructure that may Exacerbate Fire Risk or may Result in Impacts to the Environment The Project site is generally flat with no steep slopes located on or adjacent to the Project site and the site is not located in or adjacent to a very high fire, high or moderate hazard severity zone. The Project site is fully served by existing roads and utilities. As such, the Project will not need to construct any new roads, fuel breaks, power lines or other utilities. Thus, the Project would not require the installation or 4-15
City of Riverside Section 4.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant maintenance of new associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. (IS, p. 89).

Threshold: Expose People to Downslope or Downstream Flooding or Landslides, as a Result of Runoff, Post-Fire Slope Instability, or Drainage Changes The Project site and surrounding lands are relatively flat and the site is not located in or adjacent to a very high fire, high or moderate hazard severity zone. As such, the risk of downslope or downstream flooding or landslide hazards is low to nonexistent. Thus, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides because of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. (IS, p. 89).

City of Riverside Section 5.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Environmental Analysis 5-1

5.0 Environmental Analysis
Sections 15126, 15126.2 and 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines require consideration and discussion of significant environmental effects and mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects. All phases of a project must be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment:
planning, acquisition, development, and operation (Section 15126) and an EIR shall identify and focus on the significant effects of the proposed Project on the environment (Section 15126.2).

Sections 5.1 through 5.14 of the Draft EIR examine the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Project and focuses on the following issues:
 Aesthetics (Section 5.1)
 Air Quality (Section 5.2)
 Cultural Resources (Section 5.3)
 Energy (Section 5.4)
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Section 5.5)
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Section 5.6)
 Land Use and Planning (Section 5.7)
 Noise (Section 5.8)
 Population and Housing (Section 5.9)
 Public Services (Section 5.10)
 Recreation (5.11)
 Traffic and Transportation (5.12)
 Tribal Cultural Resources (Section 5.13)
 Utilities and Service Systems (Section 5.14)
Technical Studies
Technical studies providing detailed technical analyses that were used in this Draft EIR were prepared for various environmental issues, such as air quality, biological resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation, and tribal cultural resources. These documents are identified in the discussion for the individual environmental issue and included as technical appendices to the Draft EIR.

Analysis Format
The Draft EIR assesses how the proposed Project would impact the issue areas identified above. Each environmental issue addressed in this Draft EIR is presented in terms of the following subsections:

Setting: Provides information describing the existing setting on or surrounding the Project site which may be 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 section describes the physical conditions that existed when the IS/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.

Section 5.0 City of Riverside
Environmental Analysis Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR 5-2
Comments Received in Response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation: Provides information regarding if comment letters were received in response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP), and if so, how many and from whom.

Thresholds of Significance: Provides criteria for determining the significance of Project impacts for each environmental issue.

Project Design Features: 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.

Methodology: Approach used to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the project.

Environmental Impacts: Provides a discussion of the characteristics of the proposed Project that may have an effect on the environment; analyzes the nature and extent to which the proposed 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.

Recommended Mitigation Measures: Identifies mitigation measures to reduce significant adverse impacts to the extent feasible.

Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures are Implemented:

Provides a discussion of significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be feasibly mitigated or avoided, significant adverse environmental impacts that can be feasibly mitigated or avoided, adverse environmental impacts that are not significant, and beneficial impacts.

City of Riverside Sections 5.1
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Aesthetic Resources

5.1-1

5.1 Aesthetic Resources
The focus of this section is to analyze potential impacts related to Aesthetic Resources. The following discussion addresses the potential for adverse impacts that could result from the construction and operation as a result of the Project. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 7.0 – Other CEQA Topics.

5.1.1 Setting
The Project site is located in an urbanized setting in the City of Riverside (City) at the northeast corner of Streeter Avenue and Arlington Avenue. The Project site is surrounded by a variety of land uses including commercial, medium-high density residential, high-density residential, office and public facilities.

Surrounding land uses are outlined in Table 3.0-A in Section 3.0 – Project Description of this DEIR.

The existing Project site includes two existing commercial buildings located on the 17.37 net acre parcel that are associated with the former Sears Department Store and Automotive Service Center constructed in 1964. The existing site conditions and structures are discussed in further detail and reflected on Figure 3.0-12 in Section 3.0 – Project Description and Section 5.3 – Cultural Resources of this Draft EIR. The balance of the remaining Project site is composed of asphalt-paved parking areas, driveways, and minor landscaping of ornamental trees and shrubs. The site is generally flat, with outlines of hillsides to the north and west.

Scenic Vistas, Resources, and Visual Character
The City is mostly developed and considered an urbanized area. The hills and ridgelines that surround the City provide scenic vistas to residents of Riverside where they are able to experience long distance views of natural terrain. Vista points are found throughout the City, both as viewed from urban areas toward the hills and from the wilderness areas toward Riverside. 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 Box Springs Mountain, Mt. Rubidoux, Arlington Mountain, Alessandro Heights and the La Sierra/Norco Hills provide scenic views of the City and the region. (GP 2025 FEIR, p.

5.1-2).

The higher elevation hills shape the visual outline and drainage area of the City’s viewshed. Specifically, the La Sierra/Norco Hills, Mt. Rubidoux, Box Springs Mountains, Sycamore Canyon, and the many smaller ranges south of the City provide a visual backdrop as viewed from streets, buildings, and open spaces. Nearly every neighborhood in Riverside features some areas of local hills, from southern Arlanza to Hawarden Ridge. These create vistas from many of Riverside’s neighborhoods, its local streets and even residents’ back yards. (GP 2025 FEIR, p. 5.1-2).

The City has designated several scenic and special boulevards within the City that meet local criteria for designation as scenic routes. Arlington Avenue has been designated as a Scenic Boulevard Cultural Resources
The City is comprised of cultural resources that form a rich backdrop of both familiar and pleasing streetscapes experienced by Riverside’s citizens on a daily basis. These resources enrich the City’s character and from cornerstone of successful revitalization and preservation efforts. The City has identified historic neighborhoods as Historic Districts and Neighborhood Conservation Area. However, the City holds cultural resources throughout the City in structures, such as single-family residences to Section 5.1 City of Riverside
Aesthetic Resources Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.1-2
commercial, religious, and civic buildings as well as bridges, City parks, and trees. These areas and structures have a significant concentration of cultural resources that represent themes important to local history. (GP 2025 FEIR, p. 5.1-4)

5.1.2 Related Regulations
Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations applicable to the proposed Project.

State Regulations
The State of California maintains a State Scenic Highway System that includes a list of highways that are eligible for designation as a scenic highway or have already been officially designated. Section 263 of the State’s Streets and Highways Code contains the full list. Within the City no state-designated or eligible scenic highways exist. The nearest eligible state scenic highway is Interstate 15 (I-15) that runs approximately one mile away from the City and its sphere of Influence. (GP 2025 FEIR, p. 5.1-4, 5.1-5) Regional Regulations
There are no regional regulations applicable to the proposed Project.

Local Regulations
City of Riverside 2025 General Plan
The City of Riverside General Plan contains objectives and policies that are considered applicable to the proposed Project, as identified below (GP 2025, pp. LU-26, LU-29, LU-33, LU-44, OS-8, HP-25 – HP-26, HP- 28):

Land Use and Urban Design Element
Objective LU-8 Emphasize smart growth principles through all steps of the land development process.

Policy LU-8.1 Ensure well-planned infill development Citywide, allow for increased density in selected areas along established transportation corridors.

Objective LU-11 Create a network of parkways to establish stronger linkages between Riverside's neighborhoods, major elements of its natural environment and neighborhood parks and schools.

Policy LU-11.1 Recognize parkways as distinctive elements of the City's circulation network.

Policy LU-11.2 Recognize Victoria Avenue, Magnolia Avenue/Market Street, University Avenue, Van Buren Boulevard, Riverwalk Parkway, La Sierra Avenue, Arlington Avenue, Canyon Crest Drive, and Overlook Parkway as the fundamental elements of the City's parkway landscape network, and components of Riverside Park Policy LU-11.3 Seek opportunities to provide enhanced bicycle and pedestrian usage along parkways through the development process.

Objective LU-20 Recognize and enhance Arlington Avenue as a cross-city roadway that connects east to west.

City of Riverside Sections 5.1
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Aesthetic Resources

5.1-3
Policy LU-20.1 Develop a landscaped parkway with distinctive signage that promotes the function of Arlington Avenue as a roadway that connects and links many neighborhoods and business centers.

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

Policy LU-27.1 Require appropriately sized landscaped parkways in all new development.

Parkway areas shall be of sufficient width to allow planting of trees that will become large canopy trees.

Policy LU-27.3 Seek ongoing cooperation from residents in the maintenance, conservation, and protection of street trees.

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

Open Space and Conservation Element
Objective OS-2 Minimize the extent of urban development in the hillsides, and mitigate any significant adverse consequences associated with urbanization.

Policy OS-2.5 Review the feasibility of creating a “night-time sky” ordinance to reduce light pollution.

City of Riverside 2025 General Plan EIR
The are no applicable mitigation measures from the Riverside 2025 General Plan EIR that pertain to Aesthetic Resources.

City of Riverside Phase I General Plan Update
There are no objectives or policies considered applicable to the proposed Project.

City of Riverside Phase I General Plan Update EIR
The are no applicable mitigation measures from the GPUI EIR that pertain to Aesthetic Resources.

City of Riverside Municipal Code
The following sections of the City’s Municipal Code are applicable and pertain to Aesthetic Resources:

Chapter 19.120.050 Development Standards. This chapter identifies the development standards applicable to all development in the mixed-use zones.

Chapter 19.550 – Fence, Walls, Landscape Materials. This chapter sets forth standards for the construction and maintenance of fences, walls, and landscape materials to ensure that such features are aesthetically pleasing and provide for privacy and safety without obstructing views and without creating a public safety hazard or nuisance.

Chapter 19.554 – Trash/Recyclable Materials Collection Area Enclosures. This chapter sets forth standards for the construction of trash/recyclable materials collection area enclosures to ensure that such features are aesthetically pleasing and screen the trash and recycle containers without obstructing views or causing a public safety hazard or nuisance.

Section 5.1 City of Riverside
Aesthetic Resources Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.1-4
Chapter 19.556.010 – Outdoor Lighting. This chapter sets forth standards to ensure that outdoor lighting is adequate for safety, security and commerce while preserving the naturally dark night sky by mitigating artificial sky glow and preventing glare and light trespass Chapter 19.560 – Building Height Measurement. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a method for measuring the height of structures in compliance with the height limits set forth in the Zoning Code and specifies exceptions to height limit.

Chapter 19.640 – General Permit Provisions. The purpose of this chapter is to establish the overall structure for the application, review, and action on discretionary permits and legislative actions.

Additionally, it identifies and describes the permits regulated by the Zoning Code and identifies those minor activities, uses, and structures that are exempt from permit requirements while requiring compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

City of Riverside Citywide Design Guidelines and Sign Guidelines The City of Riverside adopted Citywide Design Guidelines and Sign Guidelines in November 2007 which were later amended and approved in January 2019 (RCDG). The purpose of these guidelines are to reinforce the physical image of Riverside which the City’s prosperity, well-being, and the value and contribution of agriculture, cultural diversity, industry and manufacturing, education, and architectural heritage of the city. The image of the City’s residential neighborhoods and neighborhood shopping centers emphasizes a small-town character within an urban metropolis. The physical image of Riverside provides an aesthetic that attracts the City’s work force, employers, residents, and visitors. The guidelines work to reinforce this physical image of Riverside and are intended to promote quality, welldesigned development throughout Riverside that enhances existing neighborhoods, creates identity, and improves the overall quality of life within the City by promoting a desired level of future development within the City. (RCDG).

City of Riverside Urban Forestry Policy Manual
The City of Riverside is known as a “City of Trees.” Trees beautify the landscape and enhance the quality of life for all residents. Therefore, the City has created a manual with guidelines that can be used for reference by City Staff, private contractors, volunteer organizations and citizens when working in and around trees within City jurisdiction. (UFPM, p. 3).

Tree Removals Guidelines. The Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance of the street tree system. Individual trees can affect the environment of the total community. The Public Works Director or the Director’s designee shall have the authority to remove any hazardous, diseased, or declining trees, providing that the removals meet the existing criteria as stated in the policy. The Director or Designee shall authorize all tree removals with the authority granted in this policy and a quarterly report will be provided to the Park and Recreation Commission. The Director shall provide the Park and Recreation Commission with a quarterly listing of the tree removals for the Commission’s review. The list shall include the locations of the trees and the reason for removal (UFPM, p. 14).

5.1.3 Comments Received in Response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
No comments were received regarding Aesthetic Resources in response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP).

City of Riverside Sections 5.1
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Aesthetic Resources

5.1-5

5.1.4 Thresholds of Significance
The City of Riverside has not established local CEQA significance thresholds and instead, defers to the Thresholds of Significance identified in Appendix G (“Environmental Checklist”) to the State CEQA Guidelines.

As identified in the Initial Study (Appendix A), and as presented in Section 4.0 of this DEIR, implementation of the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact in the following areas and these topics are not addressed in this DEIR:
 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; and  Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

As identified in the Initial Study prepared for this Project, implementation of the proposed Project will have potentially significant impact in the following area and this topic is addressed in this DEIR:
 In a non-urbanized area, would substantially degrade the existing visual character of quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. In an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

5.1.5 Project Design Features
The Project proposes to demolish the existing Sear Department Store and Sears Auto Center buildings.

As such, architectural features that give a nod to the Mid-Century Modern architectural style denoted by the two Sears structures will be incorporated into the design to provide tribute to these structures. The double-volume standalone Clubhouse / Leasing/Fitness Center as depicted in Figure 5.1-1, Architectural Features (Clubhouse/Leasing/Fitness), is proposed to be located at the core of the proposed development, paying homage to the Mid-Century history of the existing Sears building. The Project would incorporate the following four main Mid-Century Modern style elements: clean lines, color palettes, solid simple clean box, and flat roof. Additionally, a The white and tan central massing is highlighted at the entry by a striking, butterfly-style folded metal awning, a typical feature seen in MidCentury architectural style, will be used as a canopy along the pedestrian walkways from the Arlington Avenue pedestrian entrance. This is proposed along the area of the north façade of the existing Sears building and repeated on the rear of the clubhouse, tying the existing and newly proposed architecture opening to the main pool recreation area. Clubhouse/Leasing/Fitness Center is designed to reach a maximum height of 22 feet and 7-inches including parapets to screen rooftop equipment. The Project also proposes to include signage that utilizes a font style similar to the Sears structures and incorporate a Mid-Century Modern style through the use of horizontal lines and solid clean box.

The three-story townhomes will be sited near Streeter Avenue and the interior of the Project Site. Twostory residential structures will be located along the northern and eastern perimeter of the site complimenting the existing office and residential neighborhoods. As depicted in Figures 3.0-14 through

3.0-19 of this Draft EIR, the proposed apartments and townhomes will be designed based on a MidCentury Modern classical contemporary design, complementing the Clubhouse/Leasing/Fitness Center, united through colors and enhanced materials. Each residential building will include horizontal lines, box Section 5.1 City of Riverside
Aesthetic Resources Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.1-6
framing, breeze block, stonework, and stamped metal façade. is anchored by tower elements on each end, decorated in the enhanced siding used on the Clubhouse, and topped with varying moldings adding richness and texture. Buildings are designed so as not to exceed 36 feet in height of habitable area and include parapets to screen any rooftop equipment. Three story structures are proposed to reach a maximum of 41 feet and 3-inches in height. Two-story structures are proposed to reach a maximum height of 28 feet and 2-inches.

The architecture of the commercial component is also inspired by the Mid-Century architectural principles as the color, horizontal lines and material palette will follow the neutral style of the existing Sears building, and the canopies at the main entry point will reflect similar language as depicted in Figure 5.1-2, Architectural Features (Retail). Commercial areas will be sited along Arlington Avenue to separate them from residential uses. Commercial retail structures are designed to a height of 27 feet and 2-inches including parapets to screen rooftop equipment. The proposed grocery store is designed to a maximum of 31 feet in height as depicted in Figures 3.0-20 and 3.0-21 found in Section 3.0 – Project Description of this Draft EIR.

A pedestrian promenade and multiple areas encouraging the use of outdoor spaces as depicted in Figures 3.0-23 and 3.0-32 found in Section 3.0 – Project Description of this Draft EIR, will be provided throughout the Project site. Residential parking areas are sited toward the interior of the site with many areas providing parking under the residential structure. Commercial parking is sited closer to Arlington to reduce the amount of interference with nearby residences.

Signage will be included at the project access points utilizing horizontal lines and box framing. Building signage will include lettering paying homage to the original architect.

City of Riverside Sections 5.1
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Aesthetic Resources

5.1-9
The Project will incorporate landscaping within the right-of-way and throughout the Project site consistent with City of Riverside Urban Forestry Policy Manual. Pedestrian paths, open space features, and styles and colors will be in accordance with Citywide Design Guidelines and Sign Guidelines and will be complimentary to the surrounding existing community. The Project will also utilize screening walls and parapets to conceal the commercial loading dock and mechanical equipment, respectively. Gates and block walls will also be included to screen residential parking from the commercial areas and existing surrounding uses as depicted in Figures 3.0-28 and 3.0-29 found in Section 3.0 – Project Description of this Draft EIR.

5.1.6 Methodology
The assessment of aesthetic impacts is subjective by nature. Aesthetics generally refer to the identification of visual resources and the quality of what can be seen, as well as an overall visual perception of the environment. This analysis identifies and objectively examines factors that contribute to the perception of aesthetic impacts. Potential aesthetic impacts are evaluated by considering proposed grade separations, landform alteration, building setbacks, scale, massing, building height, and landscaping features associated with the design of a project. It should be noted that there are not any locally designated or defined standards or methodologies for the assessment of aesthetic impacts.

5.1.7 Environmental Impacts
Threshold: In a non-urbanized area, would the proposed Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? In an urbanized area, would the proposed Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
According to CEQA Statue and Guidelines §21071, a city that has a population of at least 100,000 is considered to be an urbanized area. The City’s current population is approximately 313,676 people so the City is considered an urbanized area (DOF). The site is surrounded by a mix of existing residential, office, and commercial uses. The Project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Rezone (RZ) which will bring the Project site’s land use and zoning designations consistent with the proposed uses.

The City’s development standard for a MU-V site require minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet (sf), a maximum building height of 45 feet (ft), and a minimum common open space requirement of 50 sf per dwelling unit (du) for both private and common open space. The Project proposes development of residential uses across 546,474 sf so will meet the minimum lot area requirement. The proposed buildings will have a maximum building height of 41.5 ft so will not exceed the height requirement. Last, the Project will be required to provide 19,400 square feet of private open space and the same for public/common areas for a total of 38,800 sf. The Project will include 36,502 sf of private open space associated with each of the residential building areas, as well as 57,071 sf in the public/common areas for a total of 93,573 sf of open space throughout the proposed development. Hence, the Project will meet open space requirements. Additionally the Project proposes a residential density of 22.3 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)1 which is consistent with the MU-V Mixed Use-Village designation allowing a maximum of 30 du/ac. The Project would integrate residential and commercial uses seamlessly within the existing surrounding neighborhoods and would be required to comply with all applicable municipal codes. Electric improvements requiring offsite trenching will also be required as part of the Project.

However, improvements performed within the off-site alignment will take place subsurface and the offsite area will be restored to its previous condition.

1. 388 Dwelling Units ÷17.43 gross acres = 22.3 du/ac
Section 5.1 City of Riverside
Aesthetic Resources Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.1-10
As discussed in Section 3.0 – Project Description of this Draft EIR, the former Sears structures have been mostly vacant since February 2020. A portion of the former Sears Department Store has occasionally been utilized as a seasonal store. The site’s parking lot was briefly used in 2020 as a COVID drive-thru testing site and a portion of southeastern corner has been utilized for the Riverside Certified Farmers Market. The proposed Project would provide land uses complimentary to the existing surrounding environment and remove vacant structures and a vast parking area that have mostly vacant and underutilized.

Existing surrounding residential structures are single-story. Habitable structures located within the existing residential neighborhoods east of the Project site are generally setback 37 to 79 feet from the Project sites property line. Habitable structures located within the existing residential neighborhoods north of the Project site are generally setback 24 to 43 feet from the Project site’s property line. One exception is a property at the northeastern most corner is only 8 feet from the property line which is actually non-compliant with its R-1-7000 zoning requiring a 25 foot minimum setback. Two-story structures would be sited along these areas and set back approximately 25 foot feet from the property line with a landscape buffer that includes screening trees. A six foot split-face block wall would also be provided on the north and eastern property boundaries. Three-story structures would be placed within the interior of the site and along Streeter Avenue. This placement of residential structures would reduce impacts to the surrounding existing residential neighborhoods since the Project is required to comply with setbacks and standards established for the MU-V zone; thereby reducing visual impacts to existing uses.

The existing Sears Department Store structure is 36 feet in height with loading docks visible from the north while the existing Sears Auto Service Center structure is approximately 17 feet in height. With implementation of PDF’s, no building is proposed to exceed the maximum building height requirement of 45 feet as set forth by Chapter 19.120.050 of the municipal code.

Commercial and residential areas have been thoughtful in their placement by siting the more intense uses along the Project site’s interior, Streeter Avenue, and Arlington Avenue. PDFs also utilize a color palette complimentary to the surrounding area for all proposed buildings. Projected views of the residential products are depicted in Figure 5.1-3, View of Entry/Residential from Streeter Avenue. The Project would also include landscaped outdoor space, dog park, pedestrian promenade, and extensive non-vehicular circulation to encourage a mixture of activities for employees, visitors, and residents. Existing landscape would be removed and replaced as identified by the Project’s proposed Conceptual Landscape Plan as identified in Figure 3.0-24 found in Section 3.0 – Project Description of this DEIR. New open space and pedestrian connectivity areas are depicted in Figure 5.1-4, Views of Townhomes and Pedestrian Connectivity., and Figure 5.1-5, Views Along Streeter Avenue.

The commercial buildings and site access are purposely designed to distinguish, separate, and facilitate pedestrian and vehicle access., as shown in Figure 5.1-6, View of Entry Commercial from Arlington Avenue. The Project would provide intentional equipment screening and building placement along Arlington Avenue and Streeter Avenue in order to not disrupt the existing street view. Proposed screening methods for loading docks and applicable mechanical equipment to be tucked away from view are reflected in Figure 3.0-19 found in Section 3.0 – Project Description of this DEIR.

Further, as part of the review process, the Project would also be required to comply with Citywide Design Guidelines and Sign Guidelines and the City of Riverside Urban Forestry Policy Manual to City of Riverside Sections 5.1
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Aesthetic Resources

5.1-11
reinforce the physical image of Riverside. The proposed Project would help to improve the appearance of the existing site.

Thus, with implementation of PDF’s, compliance with local regulations and design standards, and consistency with GP goals and policies related to aesthetics, the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality in an urbanized area. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

Section 5.1 City of Riverside
Aesthetic Resources Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.1-16

5.1.8 Recommended Mitigation Measures
An EIR is required to describe feasible mitigation measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.4) to scenic resources. There are no mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to Aesthetic Resources since impacts are less than significant.

5.1.9 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures Are Implemented
There are no mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to Aesthetic Resources.

City of Riverside Sections 5.2
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Air Quality

5.2-1

5.2 Air Quality
The focus of this section is to analyze potential impacts related to air quality. The following discussion addresses the potential for adverse impacts that could result from the construction and operation as a result of the Project. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 7.0 – Other CEQA Topics of this Draft EIR.

The analysis in this section is based on the Technical Memorandum – Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the Arlington Mixed Use Development Project, City of Riverside, California, prepared by Albert A. Webb Associates dated October 27, 2023 (WEBB-A). This report is contained within its entirety in Appendix B of this Draft EIR.

5.2.1 Setting
The Project site is located in the center area of the City of Riverside. The Project site has existing City of Riverside General Plan (GP) land use designation of C-Commercial and a zoning designation of CG – Commercial General as reflected in Figure 3.0-5 and Figure 3.0-6 of Section 3.0 – Project Description of this Draft EIR
Physical Setting
The proposed Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (the Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The Basin consists of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties.

Regional and local air quality within the Basin is affected by topography, atmospheric inversions, and dominant onshore flows. Topographic features such as the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains form natural horizontal barriers to the dispersion of air contaminants. The presence of atmospheric inversions limits the vertical dispersion of air pollutants. With an inversion, the temperature initially follows a normal pattern of decreasing temperature with increasing altitude; however, at some elevations, the trend reverses and temperature begins to increase as altitude increases. This transition to increasing temperature establishes the effective mixing height of the atmosphere and acts as a barrier to vertical dispersion of pollutants. (SCAQMD 1993, p. A8-2).

Dominant onshore flow provides the driving mechanism for both air pollution transport and pollutant dispersion. Air pollution generated in coastal areas is transported east to inland receptors by the onshore flow during the daytime until a natural barrier (the mountains) is confronted, limiting the horizontal dispersion of pollutants. The result is a gradual degradation of air quality from coastal areas to inland areas, which is most evident with the photochemical pollutants such as ozone formed under reactions with sunlight. (SCAQMD 1993, pp. A8-1–A8-2).

Climate
Terrain and geographical location determine climate in the Basin. The Project site lies within the terrain south of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains and East of the Santa Ana Mountains. The climate in the Basin is typical of southern California’s Mediterranean climate, which is characterized by dry, warm summers and mild winters. Winters typically have infrequent rainfall, light winds, and frequent early morning fog and clouds that turn to hazy afternoon sunshine. (SCAQMD 1993, pp. A8-1–A8-2).

The following includes factors that govern micro-climate differences among inland locations within the basin: 1) the distance of the mean air trajectory from the site to the ocean; 2) the site elevation; 3) the Section 5.2 City of Riverside
Air Quality Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.2-2
existence of any intervening terrain that may affect airflow or moisture content; and 4) the proximity to canyons or mountain passes. As a general rule, locations farthest inland from the ocean have the hottest summer afternoons, the lowest rainfall, and the least amount of fog and clouds. Foothill communities in the Basin have greater levels of precipitation, cooler summer afternoons and may be exposed to wind funneling through nearby canyons during Santa Ana winds. Terrain will generally steer local wind patterns. (SCAQMD 1993, pp. A8-1–A8-2).

The Project site is located within the City of Riverside, north of the CA-91 freeway as is reflected in Figure 3.0-1 of Section 3.0 – Project Description of this Draft EIR, within the eastern portion of the Basin (SCAQMD Map). More specifically, the Project site is bound by residences along Sierra Street to the north, Streeter Avenue to the west, Arlington Avenue to the south, and residences along Capistrano Way to the east as reflected in Figure 3.0-3 also found in Section 3.0 – Project Description of this Draft EIR.

Precipitation and Temperature
Annual average temperatures in the Basin are typically in the low to mid-60s (degrees Fahrenheit, or °F).

Temperatures above 100 °F are recorded for all portions of the basin during the summer months. (SCAQMD 1993, p. A8-1).

The climatological station closest to the Project site is a National Weather Service (NWS) Cooperative station located in Riverside. As shown in Table 5.2-A, Riverside Fire Station 3, Meteorological Data, climatological data from the NWS at this station spanning from 1981-2010 shows an annual average temperature of 66.6° F.1 with December as the coldest month (mean daily minimum temperatures of

41.6° F) and August as the warmest month of the year (mean daily maximum temperatures of 95.7° F). (WRCC).

The rainy season in the basin is from November to April. Summer rainfall can occur as widely scattered thunderstorms near the coast and in the mountainous regions in the eastern basin. Rainfall averages vary over the basin. For example, the City of Riverside averages 9 inches of rainfall, while the City of Los Angeles averages 14 inches. Rainy days vary from 5 to 10 percent of all days in the basin, with the most frequent occurrences of rainfall near the coast. (SCAQMD 1993, p. A8-1).

Over this same period of time, the climatological data from the Riverside Fire Station 3 NWS Cooperative station shows an annual average precipitation of 9.89 inches. Approximately eighty-two percent of the annual rainfall occurs during the November to March rain season. 2 The highest monthly average rainfall
occurs during February. However, year to year patterns in rainfall are unpredictable due to fluctuations in the weather. General meteorological data as measured at the Riverside Fire Station 3 weather station is shown in Table 5.2-A,Riverside Fire Station 3 Metrological Data below. (WRCC).

1. From Table 5.2-A: (annual average high of 80.8 + annual average low of 52.3 ) / 2 = 66.55

2. From Table 5.2-A: sum of average precipitation November – March: 8.16 / annual average precipitation: 9.98 =

0.82, or 82 percent.

City of Riverside Sections 5.2
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Air Quality

5.2-3
Table 5.2-A, Riverside Fire Station 3 Metrological Data Month
Temperature (°F) Average
Precipitation
(inches) Average High Average Low
January 69.1 42.3 1.81
February 69.8 44.3 2.39
March 73.1 46.4 1.79
April 77.6 49.8 0.70
May 82.4 54.9 0.19
June 88.4 58.9 0.08
July 94.6 63.3 0.04
August 95.7 64.1 0.12
September 91.5 60.7 0.15
October 83.5 54.1 0.46
November 72.6 44.9 0.78
December 68.8 41.6 1.39
Annual Average 80.8 52.3 9.89
Source: WRCC
Winds
The interaction of land (offshore) and sea (onshore) breezes control local wind patterns in the area.

Daytime winds typically flow from the coast to the inland areas, while the pattern typically reverses in the evening, flowing from the inland areas to the ocean. Air stagnation may occur in the early evening and early morning during periods of transition between day and nighttime flows.

Approximately 5 to 10 times a year, the project site vicinity experiences strong, hot, dry desert winds known as the Santa Ana winds. These winds, associated with atmospheric high pressure, originate in the upper deserts, and are channeled through the passes of the San Bernardino Mountains and into the inland valleys. Santa Ana winds can last for a period of hours or days, and gusts of over 60 miles per hour have been recorded.

High winds, such as the Santa Ana winds, affect dust generation characteristics, and create the potential for off-site air quality impacts, especially with respect to airborne nuisance and particulate emissions.

Local winds in the project area are also an important meteorological parameter because they control the initial rate of dilution of locally generated air pollutant emissions. (GP 2025 FEIR, pp. 5.3-4-5.3-5).

Categories of Emission Sources
Air pollutant emissions sources are typically grouped into two categories: stationary and mobile sources.

These emission categories are defined and discussed in the following subsections.

Stationary Sources
Stationary sources are divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources consist of a single emission source with an identified location at a facility. A single facility could have multiple point sources located on-site. Stationary point sources are usually associated with Section 5.2 City of Riverside
Air Quality Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.2-4
manufacturing and industrial processes. Examples of point sources include boilers or other types of combustion equipment at oil refineries, electric power plants, etc. Area sources are small emission sources that are widely distributed but are cumulatively substantial because there may be a large number of sources. Examples include residential water heaters; painting operations; lawn mowers; agricultural fields; landfills; and consumer products, such as barbecue lighter fluid and hair spray. (SCAQMD 1993, p. 1-1).

Mobile Sources
Mobile sources are motorized vehicles, which are classified as either on-road or off-road. On-road mobile sources typically include automobiles and trucks that operate on public roadways. Off-road mobile sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment that operate off public roadways. Mobile source emissions are accounted for as both direct source emissions (those directly emitted by the individual source) and indirect source emissions, which are sources that by themselves do not emit air contaminants but indirectly cause the generation of air pollutants by attracting vehicles. Examples of indirect sources include office complexes, commercial and government centers, sports and recreational complexes, and residential developments. (SCAQMD 1993, p. 1-2).

Air Pollution Constituents
Criteria Pollutant
Air pollutants are classified as either primary or secondary, depending on how they are formed. Primary pollutants are generated daily and are emitted directly from a source into the atmosphere. Examples of primary pollutants include: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nitric oxide (NO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulates (PM-10 and PM-2.5) and various hydrocarbons (HC), also known as volatile organic compounds (VOC) or reactive organic gases (ROG).

Secondary pollutants are created over time and occur within the atmosphere as chemical and photochemical reactions take place. An example of a secondary pollutant is ozone (O3), which is one of the products formed when oxides of nitrogen (NOX) reacts with hydrocarbons (HC), in the presence of sunlight. The predominant source of air emissions generated by the Project development is expected to be vehicle emissions. Motor vehicles primarily emit CO, NOX, and VOC/ROG/HC (Volatile Organic Compounds/Reactive Organic Gases/Hydrocarbons). (GP 2025 FEIR, p. 5.3-5).

The Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Six “criteria” air pollutants were identified using specific medical evidence available at that time, and NAAQS were established for those chemicals. The State of California has adopted the same six chemicals as criteria pollutants but has established different allowable levels. The six criteria pollutants are: CO, NO2, O3, Pb, PM-10, PM-2.5, and SO2 (EPA 2023). The following is a further discussion of the pollutants mentioned above, as well as VOCs.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) – A colorless, odorless toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon-containing substances. Concentrations of CO are generally higher during the winter months when meteorological conditions favor the build-up of primary pollutants (EPA 2023). Automobiles are the major source of CO in the basin, although various industrial processes also emit CO through incomplete combustion of fuels. In high concentrations, CO can cause serious health problems in humans by limiting the red blood cells’ ability to carry oxygen. (SCAQMD 1993, p. 3-2).

City of Riverside Sections 5.2
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Air Quality

5.2-5
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) – Those that are important in air pollution are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed by a combination of nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperatures and pressures. NO2 is a reddish-brown gas formed by the combination of NO with oxygen.

Combustion in motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations, as well as ships, railroads, and aircraft are the primary sources of NOX. NO2 at atmospheric concentrations is a potential irritant that can cause coughing in healthy people; can alter respiratory responsiveness and pulmonary functions in people with preexisting respiratory illness; and potentially lead to increased levels of respiratory illness in children. (EPA 2023).

Ozone (O3) – A colorless, toxic gas that irritates the lungs and damages materials and vegetation. During the summer’s long daylight hours, plentiful sunshine provides the energy needed to fuel photochemical reactions between NO2 and VOC which result in the formation of O3. Conditions that lead to high levels of O3 are adequate sunshine, early morning stagnation in source areas, high surface temperatures, strong and low morning inversions, greatly restricted vertical mixing during the day, and daytime subsidence that strengthens the inversion layer (all of which are characteristic of western Riverside County). Ozone represents the worst air pollution-related health threat in the basin as it affects people with preexisting respiratory illness, as well as reduces lung function in healthy people. Studies have shown that children living within the basin experience a 10–15 percent reduction in lung function. (SCAQMD 1993, p. 3-2).

Atmospheric Particulate Matter (PM) – Made up of fine solid and liquid particles, such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. PM-10 consists of particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter, and PM-2.5 consists of particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in size. Both PM-10 and PM-2.5 can be inhaled into the deepest part of the lung, attributing to health effects. The presence of these fine particles by themselves cause lung damage and interfere with the body’s ability to clear its respiratory tract. Said particles can also act as a carrier of other toxic substances. (SCAQMD 1993, p. 3-3).

Sources that contribute to particulate matter pollution include: road dust, windblown dust, agriculture, construction, fireplaces, and wood burning stoves, and vehicle exhaust. Specifically, SCAQMD data indicates that the largest component of PM-10 particles in the area comes from dust (unpaved roads, unpaved yards, agricultural lands, and vacant land that has been disked).

PM-2.5 particles are mostly manmade particles resulting from combustion sources. Organic carbon particles generated from paints, degreasers, and vehicles are another component of PM2.5 pollution. The last notable constituent of PM-2.5 sources is elemental carbon, which is used as a surrogate for diesel particulates. (EPA 2023).

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) – A colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. SO2 can result in temporary breathing impairment in asthmatic children and adults engaged in active outdoor activities. When combined with PM, SO2 can cause symptoms such as shortness of breath and wheezing; and, with long-term exposure, it can lead to the exacerbation of existing cardiovascular disease and respiratory illnesses. (EPA 2023). Although SO2 concentrations have been reduced to levels well below state and federal standards, further reductions in SO2 emissions are needed because SO2 is a precursor to sulfate and PM-10.

Section 5.2 City of Riverside
Air Quality Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.2-6
Lead (Pb) – Lead concentrations once exceeded the state and federal air quality standards by a wide margin but have not exceeded state or federal air quality standards at any regular monitoring station since 1982. Health effects associated with lead include neurological impairments, mental retardation, and behavioral disorders. At low levels, lead can damage the nervous systems of fetuses and result in lowered IQ levels in children. (EPA 2023). Though special monitoring sites immediately downwind of lead sources recorded very localized violations of the state standard in 1994, no violations have been recorded at these stations since 1996. Unleaded gasoline has greatly contributed to the reduction in lead emissions in the Basin. Since the proposed Project will not involve leaded gasoline, or other sources of lead emissions, this criteria pollutant is not expected to be a factor with Project implementation.

Reactive Organic Gases/Volatile Organic Compounds (ROG/VOC) – It should be noted that there are no state or federal ambient air quality standards for VOCs because they are not classified as criteria pollutants. VOCs are regulated; however, a reduction in VOC emissions reduces certain chemical reactions, which contribute to the formation of ozone. VOCs are also transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, contributing to higher PM10 and lower visibility levels. Although health-based standards have not been established for VOCs, health effects can occur from exposures to high concentrations of VOC because of interference with oxygen uptake. In general, ambient VOC concentrations in the atmosphere, even at low concentrations, are suspected to cause coughing, sneezing, headaches, weakness, laryngitis, and bronchitis. Some hydrocarbon components classified as VOC emissions are thought or known to be hazardous. Benzene, for example, is a hydrocarbon component of VOC emissions that is known to be a human carcinogen. (SCAQMD 2005, p. 1-5).

Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are chemicals generally referred to as “non-criteria” air pollutants which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are generally present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. For those TACs that cause cancer, there is no concentration that does not present some low-level risk. In other words, there is no threshold below which adverse health impacts are not expected to occur. This contrasts with the criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined, and for which the state and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards. The majority of the estimated health risk from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being PM from diesel-fueled engines, known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). In addition to DPM, benzene and 1,3- butadiene are also significant contributors to overall ambient public health risk in California. (SCAQMD 2005, pp. 1-6 – 1-7).

SCAQMD has conducted a detailed TAC emission inventory, air sampling, and dispersion modeling study called the “Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air SoCAB” (MATES‐II, SCAQMD 2000), MATES‐III (SCAQMD 2008), MATES‐IV (SCAQMD 2014), and MATES-V (SCAQMD 2021) (collectively, “MATES Studies”).

City of Riverside Sections 5.2
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Air Quality

5.2-7
The MATES Studies provided information on the importance of various TACs in terms of their relative health risks, as well as their spatial distribution across the Basin. The MATES‐V information can be used to characterize the “background” health risks from both regional and local TAC emission sources based on the available toxics emission inventory for the year 2018 and a comprehensive modeling effort.

As in previous MATES iterations, DPM is the largest contributor to overall air toxics cancer risk.

However, the average levels of DPM in MATES-V are 53 percent lower at the 10 monitoring sites compared to MATES-IV and 86 percent lower since MATES-II based on monitored data. Based on other SCAQMD analyses of projected DPM emissions in future years, significant decreases in DPM health impacts are expected within the next 5-10 years. These reductions reflect recent and continued efforts by the SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that reduce DPM emissions, especially from mobile sources. (SCAQMD 2021, p. ES-6).

Sources and Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants
Sources and typical effects of criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 5.2-B, Primary Sources and Effects of Criteria Pollutants below.

The correlation between project-specific emissions and potential health impacts is complex and the SCAQMD has determined the attempting to quantify health risks from relatively small projects (I.e., very large regional projects)) would not be appropriate because it may be misleading and unreliable for various reasons including modeling limitations as well as where in the atmosphere the air pollutants interact and form. (SCAQMD 2015, pp. 9-15). To date, SCAQMD has not provided methodology to assess the specific correlation between mass emissions generated and the effect on health. However, if a project in the Basin exceeds the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds, the project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until the attainment standard(s) are met in the Basin.

Table 5.2-B, Primary Sources and Effects of Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Primary Effects
Ozone (O3)
Respiratory Symptoms
Worsening of lung diseases 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.

PM 2.5
(particulate matter less than 2.5
microns in aerodynamic diameter)
Premature death
Hospitalization for worsening of cardiovascular disease Hospitalization for respiratory disease
Asthma-related emergency room visits
Increased symptoms, increased inhaler usage
PM 10
(particulate matter less than 10
microns in aerodynamic diameter)
Premature death & hospitalization, primarily for worsening of respiratory disease
Reduced visibility and material soiling
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Lung irritation
Enhanced allergic responses
Section 5.2 City of Riverside
Air Quality Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.2-8
Table 5.2-B, Primary Sources and Effects of Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Primary Effects
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Chest pain in patients with heart disease
Headache
Light-headedness
Reduced mental alertness
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Worsening of asthma: increased symptoms, increased medication usage, and emergency room visits
Lead Impaired mental functioning in children
Learning disabilities in children
Brain and kidney damage
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) Nuisance odor (rotten egg smell) At high concentrations: headache & breathing difficulties Sulfate Same as PM-2.5, particularly worsening of asthma and other lung diseases Reduces visibility
Sulfate Same as PM-2.5, particularly worsening of asthma and other lung diseases Reduces visibility
Vinyl Chloride Central nervous system effects, such as dizziness, drowsiness & headaches Long-term exposure: liver damage & liver cancer
Visibility Reducing Particles Reduced airport safety, scenic enjoyment, road safety, and discourages tourism
Toxic Air Contaminants
About 200 chemicals have been
listed as toxic air contaminants
Cancer
Reproductive and development effects
Neurological effects
Source: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/common-air-pollutants Monitored Air Quality
The Project site is located within SCAQMD Source Receptor Area (SRA) 23. The most recently published data for SRA 23’s Riverside County Metropolitan station 1 is presented in Table 5.2-C, Air Quality Monitoring Summary: 2019 - 2021 (SRA 23) below. This data indicates that the baseline air quality conditions in the Project area include occasional events of unhealthful air. However, the frequency of smog alerts has dropped significantly in the last decade. Atmospheric concentrations of ozone and particulate matter are the two most significant air quality concerns in the Project area. Locally, no second stage alert (0.35 ppm/hour) has been called by SCAQMD in over twenty years. In fact, the last second stage alert was in Upland in 1988.

City of Riverside Sections 5.2
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Air Quality

5.2-9
Table 5.2-C, Air Quality Monitoring Summary: 2019-2021 (SRA 23) Pollutant/Standard Monitoring Year
2019 2020 2021
No. Days
Exceeded
Ozone (O3):

California Standard:
1-Hour - 0.09 ppm 24 46 20
8-hour – 0.07 ppm 59 81 57
Federal Primary Standards:
8-hour 0.070 ppm 59 81 55
Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.123 0.143 0.117
Max 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.096 0.115 0.097
No. Days
Exceeded
Carbon Monoxide (CO):

California Standard:
1-Hour - 20 ppm 0 0 0
8-Hour – 9.0 ppm 0 0 0
Federal Primary Standards:
1-Hour – 35 ppm 0 0 0
8-Hour – 9.0 ppm 0 0 0
Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 1.5 1.9 2.1
Max 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 1.2 1.7 1.8
No. Days
Exceeded
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2):

California/Federal Standard:
1-Hour – 0.18 ppm (180 ppb)/ 0.10 ppm (100 ppb) 0 0 0
Federal Standard:

Federal/State AAM (53.4 / 30 ppb) 13.5 13.6 14.3
Max 1-Hour Conc. (ppb) 56.0 66.4 52.0
No. Days
Exceeded
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2):

California Standards:
1-Hour – 0.25 ppm (250 ppb) 0 0 0
Federal Primary Standards:
1-Hour - 0.075 ppm (75 ppb) 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppb) 1.8 2.2 2.1
No. Days
Exceeded
Suspended Particulates (PM-10)
California Standards:
24-Hour – 50 µg/m3 21 110 16
Federal Primary Standards:
24-Hour - 150 µg/m3 0 0 0
State AAM (20 µg/m3) 34.4 30 34.2
Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3) 99 104 76
No.

Days
Exce
eded
Fine Particulates (PM 2.5):

Federal Primary Standards:
24-Hour – 35 µg/m3 4 4 10
Federal/State AAM (12µg/m3) 11.13 12.63 12.58
Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3) 46.70 41 82.1
Source: SCAQMD 2023
Notes:

AAM=annual arithmetic mean; ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; µg/m3 = micrograms/cubic meter.

Section 5.2 City of Riverside
Air Quality Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.2-10
Attainment Status
The EPA has established NAAQS for the six criteria pollutants described in Table 5.2-C above, to protect human health, with an adequate margin of safety (EPA 2023). Likewise, CARB has developed statewide thresholds for each of the criteria pollutants. If the concentration of one or more criteria pollutants within a geographic area is found to exceed the established statewide or NAAQS threshold level for one of the criteria pollutants, the area is considered to be in nonattainment for that pollutant. (CARB 2023).

The proposed Project site is located in an area that is designated as nonattainment for PM-10 by the state, as well as nonattainment for ozone, and PM-2.5 under both the state and federal standards as reflected in Table 5.2-D, Attainment Status below. As a result, SCAQMD is required to develop an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Basin to bring the area into attainment for all criteria pollutants.

Table 5.2-D, Attainment Status
Criteria Air Pollutant Attainment Designation
State Federal
Ozone (O3) Nonattainment ---
8-Hour Ozone (O3) --- Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment PM-10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM-2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Source: CARB 2023
Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. People most likely to be affected by air pollution, as identified by the SCAQMD, may include children, the elderly, athletes, and people who are sick.

Sensitive receptors include residential uses, school playgrounds, childcare facilities, athletic facilities, hospitals, retirement homes, and convalescent homes. (SCAQMD 2005, pp. 2-1 and G-5). The closest existing sensitive receptors to the Project site are residences adjacent to the north and east site boundary as well as residences across Streeter Avenue, approximately 90 feet (27 meters) west of the Project site. (WEBB-A, p. 8).

5.2.2 Related Regulations
The Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) establish the context for the local air quality management plans (AQMP) and for determination of the significance of a project's contribution to local or regional pollutant concentrations. Federal and State AAQS are presented in Table 5.2-C above.

The AAQS represent the level of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other diseases or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, all referred City of Riverside Sections 5.2
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Air Quality

5.2-11
to as “sensitive receptors.” As stated above, SCAQMD defines a "sensitive receptor" as a land use or facility such as schools, childcare centers, athletic facilities, playgrounds, retirement homes, and convalescent homes. (SCAQMD 1993, p. 1-2).

Federal Regulations
Clean Air Act (CAA)
The EPA is the lead Federal Agency charged with the implementation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act (CAA). As part of this effort, the EPA is responsible for the establishment of national ambient air quality standards (referred to herein as the “Federal Standards” or NAAQS). They are designed to protect those sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.

The CAA (and its subsequent amendments) requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The CAA Amendments dictate that states containing areas violating the NAAQS must revise their SIPs to include extra control measures to reduce air pollution. California’s SIP includes strategies and control measures to attain the NAAQS by deadlines established by the CAA. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, plans and rules and regulations of the various agencies with jurisdiction over the state’s air basins. The EPA has the responsibility to review all SIPs to determine if they conform to the requirements of the CAA.

The 1977 federal CAA Amendments required the EPA to identify national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) to protect public health and welfare. HAPs include certain volatile organic chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and radionuclides that present a tangible hazard, based on scientific studies of exposure to humans and other mammals. Under the 1990 federal CAA Amendments, which expanded the control program for HAPs, 189 substances and chemical families were identified as HAPs.

State Regulations
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)
The mission of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) is to restore, protect and enhance the environment, to ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality. This is accomplished by developing, implementing, and enforcing environmental laws that regulate air, water and soil quality, pesticide use and waste recycling and reduction. Relevant to air quality, the CalEPA consists of the CARB and the Office Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).

In 2012, the Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 535, which targets disadvantaged communities in California for investment of proceeds from the State’s cap-and-trade program to improve public health, quality of life, and economic opportunity in California’s most burdened communities, while also reducing pollution. SB 535 directed that 25 percent of the proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund go to projects that provide a benefit to disadvantaged communities. The legislation gave CalEPA responsibility for identifying those communities. In 2016, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 1550, which now requires that 25 percent of proceeds from the fund be spent on projects located in disadvantaged communities. CalEPA has prepared a list of disadvantaged communities for the purpose of SB 535 and CalEnviroScreen is a general mapping tool developed by OEHHA to help identify California communities that are most affected by sources of pollution.

Section 5.2 City of Riverside
Air Quality Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.2-12
According to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, the census tract containing the Project site is not located within a disadvantaged community. However, the adjacent census tract on the west side of Streeter Avenue is. (OEHHA 2023)
With regard to the Community Air Protection Program (CAPP), each year CARB’s governing board (Board) is required to consider selecting communities for participation in the CAPP per AB 617.

Communities are selected for developing community air monitoring systems, emissions reduction programs, or both in order to improve air quality in their community. Over the first four years of the Program, the Board selected 17 communities where these focused actions are underway (CARB 2022a).

The City of Riverside is not one of the selected communities and to date has not been nominated to participate in the CAPP. (CARB 2022b).

California Air Resource Board (CARB)
CARB is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), meeting State requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act, and the establishment of State ambient air quality standards. Under the CCAA, areas are designated as non-attainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a state standard for the pollutant was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are affected by highly irregular or infrequent events are not considered violations of a state standard and are not used as a basis for designating areas as non-attainment. Attainment status is shown in Table 5.2-D above. CARB is also responsible for setting emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for other emission-sources including consumer goods and off-road equipment. In general, these vehicle emissions standards are more restrictive than those established at the federal level. CARB also established passenger vehicle fuel specifications, which became effective in March 1996.

California also regulates toxic air contaminants (TACs) through its air toxics program, mandated in Chapter 3.5 (Toxic Air Contaminants) of the Health and Safety Code (H&SC Sections 39660, et seq.) and Part 6 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment (H&SC Sections 44300, et seq.). The CARB, working in conjunction with the OEHHA, identifies toxic air contaminants. Air toxic control measures may then be adopted to reduce ambient concentrations of the identified toxic air contaminant below a specific threshold based on its effects on health, or to the lowest concentration achievable through use of best available control technology for toxics (T-BACT). The program is administered by the CARB. Air quality control agencies, including the SCAQMD, must incorporate air toxic control measures into their regulatory programs or adopt equally stringent control measures as rules within six months of adoption by the CARB.

California Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24) The California Energy Code (CCR Title 24, Part 6) was established in 1978 to reduce California’s energy consumption. Energy use standards in the code, referred to as Building Energy Efficiency Standards, are updated on an approximately three-year cycle. (CEC Standards).

These efficiency standards (commonly referred to as Title 24 standards) apply to newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings. (CEC 2022). They are designed to reduce wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and enhance outdoor and indoor environmental quality. The current 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect January 1, 2023, focuses on four key areas in new construction of homes and business by encouraging 1) electric heat pump technology and use, 2) establishing electric-ready requirements when natural gas is installed, 3) expanding solar photovoltaic (PV) system and battery storage standards, and City of Riverside Sections 5.2
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Air Quality

5.2-13
4) strengthening ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality. Specifically, the 2022 updates require all new homes be electric-ready. That means buildings with gas stoves have electrical panels and wiring to support a switch to electric stoves. Further advancements and cost reductions will continue to expand electric options for heating, cooking, laundering, and electric vehicle (EV) charging to meet all Californians’ needs. (CEC 2022). The Project will be subject to the Title 24 Standards in effect at the time of building permits.

It is projected that the 2022 building efficiency standards will reduce 10 million metric tons of GHGs over 30 years. This reduction is equivalent to taking nearly 2.2 million cars off the road for a year. (CEC 2022).

California’s Appliance Efficiency Regulations (CCR Title 20, Parts 1600–1608) contain energy performance, energy design, water performance, and water design standards for appliances (including refrigerators, ice makers, vending machines, freezers, water heaters, fans, boilers, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, pool equipment, and plumbing fittings) that are sold or offered for sale in California. (CEC Title 20).

California Green Building Code
Part 11 of the California Green Building Standards Code in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations is also known as the CALGreen Code. (CBSC) The development of the CALGreen Code is intended to:
(1) cause a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. The current cycle of the CALGreen Code was adopted in 2022 and became effective January 1, 2023.

The following are examples of some of the 2022 CALGreen Code requirements applicable to this Project:

Non-Residential
CALGreen Section 5.106.4: Bicycle parking. Comply with Sections 5.106.4.1 and 5.106.4.1.2 or meet local ordinance, whichever is stricter.
 5.106.4.1 Short-term bicycle parking. If the project is anticipated to generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5 percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack.
 5.106.4.1.2 Long-term bicycle parking. For buildings with over 10 tenant-occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5 percent of motorized vehicle parking capacity, with a minimum of one space. Acceptable parking facilities shall be convenient from the street and may include: 1.

Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles; 2. Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks; and 3. Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers. Note: Additional information on recommended bicycle accommodations may be obtained from Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates.

CALGreen Section 5.106.5.3: Construction to provide electric vehicle infrastructure and facilitate electric vehicle charging shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3.1 and shall be provided in accordance with regulations in the California Building Code and the California Electrical Code.  5.106.5.3.1 Electric Vehicle (EV) Capable spaces shall be provided in accordance with Table

5.106.5.3.1(provided below) and the following requirements:

Section 5.2 City of Riverside
Air Quality Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.2-14

1. Raceways complying with the California Electrical Code and no less than 1-inch (25 mm) diameter shall be provide and shall originate at a service panel or subpanel(s) serving the area and shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the EV Capable space and into a suitable listed cabinet, box, enclosure or equivalent. A common raceway may be used to serve multiple EV capable spaces.

2. A service panel or subpanel(s) shall be provided with panel space and electrical load capacity dedicated 208/240 volt, 40-ampere minimum branch circuit for each EV capable space, with delivery of 30-ampere minimum to an installed Electrical Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) at each Electric Vehicle Charging Station (EVCS)

3. The electrical system and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to supply full rated amperage at each EV capable space.

4. The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall identify the reserved overcurrent protective device space(s) as “EV CAPABLE.” The raceway termination location shall be permanently and visibly marked as “EV CAPABLE.”
CALGreen Code Table 5.106.5.3.1 shows the number of parking spaces required EV Capable Spaces and the number of EV Capable Spaces provided with EVSE. Table 5.2-E, CALGreen Code Electric Vehicle Charging Space Calculation, is reflected below.

Table 5.2-E, CALGreen Code Electric Vehicle Charging Space Calculation Total Number of Actual Parking Spaces Number of Required Capable Spaces Number of EVCS
0-9 0 0
10-25 4 0
26-50 8 2
51-75 13 3
76-10 17 4
101-150 25 6
151-200 35 9
201 and over 20 percent of total1 25 percent of EV capable spaces1 Source: CBSC 2022
Notes:

1. Calculation for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.

CALGreen Section 5.106.5.4: EV charging: medium-duty and heavy-duty. Construction shall comply with Section 5.106.5.4.1 to facilitate future installation of EVSE. Construction for warehouses, grocery stores and retail stores with planned off-street loading spaces shall also comply with Section 5.106.5.4.1 for future installation of medium- and heavy-duty EVSE.
 5.106.5.4.1 EV charging readiness requirements for warehouses, grocery stores and retail stores with planned off-street loading spaces. In order to avoid future demolition when adding EV supply and distribution equipment, spare raceway(s) or busway(s) and adequate capacity for transformer(s), service panel(s) or subpanel(s) shall be installed at the time of construction in City of Riverside Sections 5.2
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Air Quality

5.2-15
accordance with the California Electrical Code. Construction plans and specifications shall include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. The transformer, main service equipment and subpanels shall meet the minimum power requirement in Table 5.106.5.4.1 to accommodate the dedicated branch circuits for the future installation of EVSE.

2. The construction documents shall indicate one or more location(s) convenient to the planned off-street loading space(s) reserved for medium- and heavy-duty ZEV charging cabinets and charging dispensers, and a pathway reserved for routing of conduit from the termination of the raceway(s) or busway(s) to the charging cabinet(s) and dispenser(s), as shown in Table 5.106.5.4.1.

3. Raceway(s) or busway(s) originating at a main service panel or a subpanel(s) serving the area where the potential future medium- and heavy-duty EVSE will be located and shall terminate in close proximity to the potential future location of the charging equipment for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.

4. The raceway(s) or busway(s) shall be of sufficient size to carry the minimum additional service load to the future location of the charging for medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs as shown in Table 5.106.5.4.1.

CALGreen Code Table 5.106.5.3.1 shows the raceway conduit and panel power requirements for medium- and heavy-duty EVSE. Table 5.2-F, CALGreen Code Requirements for Medium- and Heavy-Duty EVSE, is reflected below.

Table 5.2-F, CALGreen Code Requirements for Medium- and Heavy-Duty EVSE Building Type Building Size (SQ. FT) Number of Off-Street Loading Spaces
Additional Capacity
Required (KVA) for
Raceway & Busway and
Transformer & Panel
Grocery
10,000 to 90,000
1 or 2 200
3 or Greater 400
Greater than 90,000 1 or Greater 400
Retail
10,000 to 135,000
1 or 2 200
3 or Greater 400
Greater than 135,000 1 or Greater 400
Warehouse 20,000 to 256,000
1 or 2 200
3 or Greater 400
Greater than 256,000 1 or Greater 400
Source: CBSC 2022
CALGreen Section 5.504.5.3: Filters. In mechanically ventilated buildings, provide regularly occupied areas of the building with air filtration media for outside and return air that provides at least a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 13. MERV 13 filters shall be installed prior to occupancy, and Section 5.2 City of Riverside
Air Quality Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.2-16
recommendations for maintenance with filters of the same value shall be included in the operation and maintenance manual.

Residential
CALGreen Section 4.106.4: EV charging for new construction. New construction shall comply with Sections 4.106.4.1 or 4.106.4.2 to facilitate future installation and use of EV chargers. EVSE shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code.  4.106.4.1 New one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses with attached private garages.

For each dwelling unit, install a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit. The raceway shall not be less than trade size 1 (nominal 1-inch inside diameter).

The raceway shall originate at the main service or subpanel and shall terminate into a listed cabinet, box, or other enclosure in close proximity to the proposed location of an EV charger.

Raceways are required to be continuous at enclosed, inaccessible, or concealed areas and spaces. The service panel and/or subpanel shall provide capacity to install a 40-ampere 208/240-volt minimum dedicated branch circuit and space(s) reserved to permit installation of a branch circuit overcurrent protective device.
 4.106.4.2 New multifamily dwellings, hotels, and motels and new residential parking facilities.

When parking is provided parking spaces for new multifamily dwellings, hotels and motels shall meet the requirements of Section 4.106.4.2.1 and 4.106.4.2.2. Calculations for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. A parking space served by electric vehicle supply equipment or designed as a future EV charging space shall count as at least one standard automobile parking space only for purpose of complying with any applicable minimum parking space requirements established by a local jurisdiction. See Vehicle Code Section 22511.2 for further details.
 4.106.4.2.1 Multifamily development projects with less than 20 dwelling units; and hotels and motels with less than 20 sleeping units or guest rooms. The number of dwelling units, sleeping units or guest rooms shall be based on all buildings on a project site subject to this section.

1. EV Capable. Ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces on a building site, provided for all types of parking facilities, shall be electric vehicle charging spaces (EV spaces) capable of supporting future Level 2 EVSE. Electrical load calculations shall demonstrate that the electrical panel service capacity and electrical system, including any on-site distribution transformer(s), have sufficient capacity to simultaneously charge all EVs at all required EV spaces at a minimum of 40 amperes. The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall identify the overcurrent protective device space(s) reserved for future EV charging purposes as “EV CAPABLE” in accordance with the California Electrical Code.

2. EV Ready. Twenty-five (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.  4.106.4.2.2 Multifamily development projects with 20 or more dwelling units, hotels, and motels with 20 or more sleeping units or guest rooms. The number of dwelling units, sleeping units or guest rooms shall be based on all buildings on a project site subject to this section.

5.2-17
demonstrate that the electrical panel service capacity and electrical system, including any on-site distribution transformer(s), have sufficient capacity to simultaneously charge all EVs at all required EV spaces at a minimum of 40 amperes. The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall identify the overcurrent protective device space(s) reserved for future EV charging purposes as “EV CAPABLE” in accordance with the California Electrical Code.

3. EV Chargers. 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.

When low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles or Level 2 EVSE are installed beyond the minimum required, an automatic load management system (ALMS) may be used to reduce the maximum required electrical capacity to each space served by the ALMS.

The electrical system and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to deliver at least 3.3 kW simultaneously to each EV charging station (EVCS) served by the ALMS. The branch circuit shall have a minimum capacity of 40 amperes and installed EVSE shall have a capacity of not less than 30 amperes. ALMS shall not be used to reduce the minimum required electrical capacity to the required EV capable spaces.
 4.106.4.2.2.1 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS). Electric vehicle charging stations required by Section 4.106.4.2.2.1.2, Item 3, shall comply with Section 4.106.4.2.2.1.1.  4.106.4.2.2.1.1 Location. EVCS shall comply with at least one of the following options:

1. The charging space shall be located adjacent to an accessible parking space meeting the requirements of the California Building Code, Chapter 11A, to allow use of the EV charger from the accessible parking space.

2. The charging space shall be located on an accessible route, as defined in the California Building Code, Chapter 2, to the building.

Regional Regulations
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The 1977 Lewis Air Quality Management Act merged four air pollution control districts to create the SCAQMD to coordinate air quality planning efforts throughout Southern California. It is responsible for monitoring air quality, as well as planning, implementing, and enforcing programs designed to attain and maintain state and federal ambient air quality standards. Programs include air quality rules and regulations that regulate stationary sources, area sources, point sources, and certain mobile source emissions. The SCAQMD is also responsible for establishing stationary source permitting requirements and for ensuring that new, modified, or relocated stationary sources do not create net emission increases.

The SCAQMD monitors air quality over its jurisdiction of 10,743 square miles, including the Basin, which covers an area of 6,745 square miles. The Basin includes all of Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The SCAQMD also regulates the County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin and Mojave Desert Air Basin. The SCAQMD has developed a variety of plans and Section 5.2 City of Riverside
Air Quality Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.2-18
rules aiming to improve air quality within the Basin, as discussed below. (SCAQMD 2005, pp. 1-11 – 1- 12).

Air Quality Management Plan
All areas designated as non-attainment under the CCAA are required to prepare plans showing how they will meet the air quality standards. The SCAQMD prepares the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to address CAA and CCAA requirements by identifying policies and control measures.

The SCAQMD adopted an updated AQMP in December 2022. The 2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from previous AQMPs to meet various ozone and PM-2.5 standards. It 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 NOX 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 of 70 parts per billion (ppb). (SCAQMD 2022, p. ES-2).

The 2022 AQMP includes a total of 49 control measures: 31 control measures target stationary sources and are categorized into four groups (NOX Control Measures, Co-Benefits from Climate and Energy Programs, Limited Strategic VOC Measures and Other Measures; and the remaining 18 control measures target mobile sources and are facility-based mobile source measures, emission reductions from incentive programs, and partnerships with local, State, federal, and international entities. (SCAQMD 2022, pp. ES-7 – ES-8).

The NOX measures are further grouped by residential, commercial, and large industrial combustion.

Many control measures focus on widespread deployment of zero emission (ZE) and low NOX technologies through a combination of regulatory approaches and incentives and will require technology assessments to better understand where and when ZE and low NOx technologies can be implemented. (SCAQMD 2022, p. ES-7).

The residential and commercial measures are frequently referred to as “building measures,” which are in line with California’s aggressive climate goals to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions across various sectors. State climate actions, such as Title 24 energy code requirements and building electrification (e.g., Assembly Bill 3232), can also help reduce NOX emissions. In addition, CARB has proposed a statewide zero GHG emissions standard for residential and commercial building appliances, which would have criteria pollutant co-benefits. SCAQMD has also developed multiple building-related control measures to address emissions from residential and commercial combustion equipment for space heating, water heating, cooking, and others. (SCAQMD 2022, p. ES-7).

The AQMP utilizes the population and growth estimates compiled by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in their 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (2020 RTP/SCS), known as Connect SoCal. (SCAQMD 2022, p. 3-22).

SCAG’s population and employment projections are based on the City’s growth projections provided by cities, including from cities’ general plans (SCAG 2020, p. xiii). Should a project demonstrate compliance with local land use plans and/or population projections, then the AQMP would have taken into account such uses when it was developed, and the project would not conflict with implementation of such a plan.

City of Riverside Sections 5.2
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Air Quality

5.2-19
Rule 220
SCAQMD Rule 220 gives the Executive Officer the power to exempt a source from prohibitions outlined in SCAQMD Regulations IV and XI, Prohibitions and Source Specific Standards respectively, if they can make the finding that the installation of controls and/or process changes required to achieve compliance with the subject prohibitory rule will result in a net adverse impact on air quality. One of the conditions of the permits on exemptions issued under Rule 220 is that alternative controls and/or process changes which will result in the greatest practical net emission reduction be included for project operation. (Rule 220).

Rule 402
SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) prohibits the discharge of air containments in such quantities that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public but does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. (Rule 402).

Rule 403
The Project will be required to comply with existing SCAQMD rules for the reduction of fugitive dust emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 establishes these procedures. The potential requirements include the application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils at least twice a day, covering all haul vehicles before transport of materials, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph, and sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways used by construction vehicles. In addition, it is required to establish a vegetative ground cover on disturbance areas that are inactive within 30 days after active operations have ceased. Alternatively, an application of dust suppressants can be applied in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stable surface. Rule 403 also requires grading and excavation activities to cease when winds exceed 25 mph (Rule 403). In addition, projects that disturb 50 or more acres or more of soil or move 5,000 cubic yards of materials per day are required to submit a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or a Large Operation Notification Form to SCAQMD.

Rule 481
SCAQMD Rule 481 applies to all spray painting and spray coating operations and equipment and requires all spray coating equipment to be (1) operated inside an approved control enclosure, (2) applied using high velocity-low pressure (HVLP), electrostatic and/or airless spray equipment, or (3) applied using which has an equal effectiveness to either of the two approved methods. (Rule 481).

Rule 1108
SCAQMD Rule 1108 applies to cutback and emulsified asphalt used at project sites. (Rule 1108).

Rule 1113
SCAQMD Rule 1113 governs the sale of architectural coatings and limits the volatile organic content (VOC) content in paints and paint solvents. This rule will dictate the VOC content of paints available for use during the construction of the buildings. (Rule 1113).

Rule 1143
SCAQMD Rule 1143 aims to reduce emissions of VOCs from the use, storage, and disposal of consumer paint thinners and multi-purpose solvents commonly used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment and other solvent cleaning operations by limiting their VOC content.

Additionally, Rule 1143 requires several best management practices to reduce VOCs during use and application of paint thinners and other solvents. For example, this Rule requires containers to be closed Section 5.2 City of Riverside
Air Quality Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.2-20
when not in use. This Rule also establishes requirements for appropriate labelling and disclosure of contents for containers and storage areas of these corrosive, flammable substances. (Rule 1143).

Rule 1186
SCAQMD Rule 1186 is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of vehicular traffic on paved and unpaved public roads, and at livestock operations. This includes requirements for local governments that contract for street sweeping services to utilize only certified street sweeping equipment. (Rule 1186).

Rule 1303
SCAQMD Rule 1303 prohibits issuance of permits for any relocation or for any new or modified source which results in an emission increase of any nonattainment air contaminant, any ozone depleting compound, or ammonia unless a best available control technology (BACT) is employed for the new or relocated source as specified by the Clean Air Act or other regulations. (Rule 1303).

Local Regulations
City of Riverside 2025 General Plan
The City of Riverside General plan contains objectives and policies that are considered applicable to the proposed Project, as identified below:

Air Quality Element
Policy AQ-1.3 Separate, buffer and protect sensitive receptors from significant sources of pollution to the greatest extent possible.

Policy AQ-1.5 Encourage infill development projects within urbanized areas, which include job centers and transportation nodes.

Policy AQ-1.6 Provide a mechanism to create opportunities for 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-1.19 Require future commercial areas to foster pedestrian circulation through the land use entitlement process and/or business regulation.

Objective AQ-2 Reduce air pollution by reducing emissions from mobile sources.

City of Riverside Sections 5.2
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Air Quality

5.2-21
Policy AQ-2.22 Monitor traffic and congestion to determine when and where the City needs new transportation facilities to achieve increased mobility efficiency.

Policy AQ-2.25 Support the development of alternative fuel infrastructure that is publicly accessible.

Objective AQ-4 Reduce particulate matter, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency, as either airborne photochemical precipitates or windborne dust.

Policy AQ-4.2 Reduce particulate matter from agriculture (e.g., require use of clean nondiesel equipment and particulate traps), construction, demolition, debris hauling, street cleaning, utility maintenance, railroad rights-of-way and offroad vehicles to the extent possible as provided in SCAQMD Rule 403.

Policy AQ-5.7: Require residential building construction to meet or exceed energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.

City of Riverside 2025 General Plan EIR
The following are applicable mitigation measures from the City of Riverside 2025 General Plan EIR that pertain to Air Quality (GP 2025 FEIR, p. 5.3-50-53).

MM Air 1: To mitigate for potential adverse impacts resulting from construction activities, proposed development projects that are subject to CEQA shall have construction-related air quality impacts analyzed using the latest available URBEMIS model, or other methods sanctioned by the SCAQMD. The analysis of construction-related air quality impacts shall be included in the development project’s CEQA analysis, including recommended mitigation measures. Proposed mitigation measures may include extending the construction period as feasible in order to ensure air quality thresholds are not exceeded. The analysis shall address pollution levels near sensitive receptors and require mitigation to reduce emissions.

MM Air 2: To mitigate for potential adverse impacts resulting from construction activities, development projects must abide by the SCAQMD’s Rule 403 concerning Best Management Practices for construction sites in order to reduce emissions during the construction phase.

Measures may include:
 Development of a construction traffic management program that includes, but is not limited to, rerouting construction related traffic off congested streets, consolidating truck deliveries, and providing temporary dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction traffic to and from site;
 Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved public roads;
o Wash off trucks and other equipment leaving the site; o Replace ground cover in disturbed areas immediately after construction; o Keep disturbed/loose soil moist at all times;
o Suspend all grading activities when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour; o Enforce a 15-mile per hour speed limit on unpaved portions of the construction site.

City of Riverside Phase I General Plan Update
There are no objectives or policies considered applicable to the proposed Project.

Section 5.2 City of Riverside
Air Quality Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.2-22
City of Riverside Phase I General Plan Update EIR
The are no applicable mitigation measures from the GPUI EIR that pertain to Air Quality.

City of Riverside Municipal Code
The following sections of the City’s Municipal Code are applicable and pertain to Air Quality:

Chapter 19.120.050 Development Standards. This chapter identifies the development standards applicable to all development in the mixed-use zones.

Chapter 16.26 – Electrification of New Buildings. The City requires building electrification in certain newly constructed buildings. New building permits filed after January 6, 2023 for buildings three stories or less require electrification and buildings four or more stories are subject to this requirement in January 2026.

5.2.3 Comments Received in Response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
No comments were received regarding Air Quality in response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP).

5.2.4 Thresholds of Significance
The City of Riverside has not established local CEQA significance thresholds and instead, defers to the thresholds of significance identified in Appendix G (“Environmental Checklist”) to the State CEQA Guidelines.

As identified in the Initial Study (Appendix A) and as outlined in Section 4.0 of this DEIR, implementation of the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact in the following area and this topic is not addressed in this DEIR:
 Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

As identified in the Initial Study prepared for this Project, implementation of the proposed Project will have potentially significant impacts in the following areas and these topics are addressed in this DEIR:
 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;  Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; and  Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

5.2.5 Project Design Features
The proposed Project will be designed and constructed to meet all applicable standards under CALGreen, Title 24, and Municipal Code 16.26 (Electrification of New Buildings), as described in Section

5.2.2, above. In particular, the Project will include the following design features:
 Rooftop and carport solar (PV) panels, consistent with the 2022 CALGreen code; and City of Riverside Sections 5.2
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Air Quality

5.2-23
 Residential appliances installed by the developer will be Energy Star-rated.

Where possible, these features have been quantified in the Project’s air quality emissions estimates, as described in Section 5.2.7, below.

5.2.6 Methodology
The Technical Memorandum – Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the Arlington Mixed Use Development Project, City of Riverside, California (WEBB-A) was prepared for the proposed Project by Albert A. Webb Associates dated October 2023 (included as Appendix B). The methodology used within the analysis is consistent with guidance prepared by the SCAQMD for quantification of emissions and evaluation of potential impacts related to air quality. As recommended by SCAQMD staff, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEModTM) version 2022.1 program was used to quantify project-related emissions.

5.2.7 Environmental Impacts
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The City is located within the Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD. SCAQMD prepares and regularly updates an AQMP to establish a comprehensive program to lead the Basin into compliance with all federal and state air quality standards, the most recent of which is the 2022 AQMP. (SCAQMD 2022).

As outlined in Section 5.2.2, above, the control measures and related emission reduction estimates included in the AQMP are based on emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment estimates defined in consultation with local governments. To do this, the AQMP utilizes the population and growth estimates compiled by the SCAG in their 2020 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal). (SCAQMD 2022, pp. 4-51-4-55). As stated previously, SCAG’s population and employment projections for the City are based on the City’s growth projections (SCAG 2020, p. 70), which are outlined in the GP. Thus, since the 2022 AQMP is consistent with the 2020 RTP/SCS, the 2022 AQMP is also consistent with the growth assumptions in the GP. Accordingly, if a project demonstrates compliance with local land use plans and/or population projections, then the AQMP would have taken into account such uses when it was developed, and the project would not conflict with implementation of such a plan.

The Project will comply with all the 2020 RTP/SCS regional policies, as discussed in this Draft EIR’s Section 6.0 Consistency with Regional Plans. However, per this Draft EIR’s Section 3.0 Project Description, the Project includes a proposal to amend the existing General Plan Land Use designation of one parcel currently designated General Plan Land Use Designation of C – Commercial and a zoning designation of CG – Commercial General. The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from (C) – Commercial to (MU-V) – Mixed Use-Village, the rezone (RZ) proposes to change the Project site from (CG) – Commercial General to (MU-V) Mixed UseVillage. The Project proposes a residential density of 26.87 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)3 which is consistent with the MU-V designation allowing a maximum of 30 du/ac. As discussed in Section 5.9 - Population and Housing of this Draft EIR, while the Project would result in a population increase of approximately 1,273 persons, this number represents growth that is less than one percent of the more

3. 388 Dwelling Units ÷14.44 Residential Acres = 26.87 du/ac Section 5.2 City of Riverside
Air Quality Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.2-24
conservative population projections analyzed by the Phase I General Plan Update (GPUI) that projected 67,645 more persons than SCAG projections. SCAG RTP/SCS growth forecast indicates that in the year 2018 the jobs-to-housing ratio for Riverside County was 1.04:1, which by definition is considered jobsrich. SCAG predicted that the City would remain a job-rich area with the projected 2045 population growth. As such, the resulting increase in population growth is not substantial compared to what was analyzed in the City’s GPUI, and the additional housing from this infill development would help the City fulfill its State housing requirements. Moreover, the Project on an individual basis does not have an impact as discussed in the following Threshold (Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?”), and as such, the proposed Project would not conflict with the goals and objectives of the AQMP.

Additionally, the control measures contained within the 2022 AQMP will still apply to the Project site, and through this compliance, the Project will not obstruct implementation of the 2022 AQMP. Such control measures include, for example, taking credit for energy efficiency mandates (e.g., Title 24), and other programs that provide incentives, rebates, and loans for efficiency projects. Moreover, the mobile source control measures in the 2022 AQMP were based on a variety of control technologies that focus on accelerated retrofits or replacement of existing vehicles or equipment, acceleration of vehicle turnover through voluntary vehicle retirement programs, and greater use of cleaner fuels. The measures will also encourage greater deployment of zero-emission vehicles and equipment technologies such as plug-in hybrids, battery-electric, and fuel cells. (2022 AQMP, p. 4-21).

For these reasons, the proposed Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP.

Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The portion of the Basin within which the proposed Project site is located is designated as a nonattainment area for PM-10 under State standards, and as a nonattainment area for ozone and PM-2.5 under both State and federal standards as reflected in Table 5.2-D above. SCAQMD considers the thresholds for project-specific impacts and cumulative impacts to be the same (SCAQMD 2003).

Consequently, projects that exceed project-specific significance thresholds are considered by SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. Project-specific air quality impacts have been analyzed, as described below.

Air quality impacts can be described in a short- and long-term perspective. Short-term impacts occur during site preparation and Project construction, whereas long-term impacts are associated with Project operation. A discussion of the Project’s potential short-term construction-period and long-term operational-period air quality impacts is provided below.

Construction Emissions
Construction emissions from Project construction were evaluated in WEBB-A using the CalEEMod version 2022.1. The default parameters within CalEEMod were used and these default values reflect a worst-case scenario, which means that Project emissions are expected to be equal to or less than the estimated emissions. In addition to the default values used, assumptions relevant to model inputs for short-term construction emission estimates used are described below. Construction activities City of Riverside Sections 5.2
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Air Quality

5.2-25
associated with the Project may result in emissions of SCAQMD criteria pollutants VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM-10, and PM-2.5. (WEBB-A, pp. 2).

Construction is anticipated to begin no earlier than July 2024. The Project will be developed in two overlapping phases. Phase 1 consists of demolition of the existing buildings and construction of: 20,320 square feet of supermarket and 5,000 square feet of retail building (modeled as a strip mall). Phase 2 consists of 388 multi-family dwelling units (modeled as low-rise apartments) and a recreational swimming pool.

Construction related emissions may result from construction activities involving: demolition grading, building construction, paving, and painting (architectural coatings), with the approximate construction schedules shown below in Table 5.2-G, Phase 1 Estimated Construction Schedule and Table 5.2-H, Phase 2 Estimated Construction Schedule. Working days are assumed to be 5 days per week.

Table 5.2-G, Phase 1 Estimated Construction Schedule
Construction Activity Start Date End Date Total Working Days Demolition July 1, 2024 July 26, 2024 20
Grading July 29, 2024 August 9, 2024 10
Building Construction August 12, 2024 June 27, 2025 230 Paving June 9, 2025 June 27, 2025 15
Architectural Coating June 9, 2025 June 27, 2025 15
Table 5.2-H, Phase 2 Estimated Construction Schedule
Construction Activity Start Date End Date Total Working Days Grading January 1, 2025 January 28, 2025 20
Building Construction January 29, 2025 May 26, 2026 345 Architectural Coating December 3, 2025 May 26, 2026 125 Paving January 29, 2025 March 25, 2025 40
Each phase will use the following heavy-duty off-road construction equipment as shown in Table 5.2-I, Construction Equipment below, based on estimates from the Project applicant. The engine tier for each piece of equipment is calculated using CalEEMod defaults for the statewide fleet average emissions factors. Each piece of equipment is assumed to operate 8 hours per day. (WEBB-A, p. 3).

Table 5.2-I, Construction Equipment
Construction Activity Off-Road Equipment Unit Amount
Phase 1 Phase 2
Demolition Crushing /Processing
Equipment 1 0
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 0
Excavators 3 0
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 0
Off Highway Truck1 1 0
Grading Excavators 1 2
Graders 1 2
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1
Section 5.2 City of Riverside
Air Quality Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.2-26
Scrapers 0 4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 2
Crushing /Processing
Equipment 0 1
Off-Highway Trucks1 1 1
Building Construction Forklifts 3 3
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 2
Welders 1 2
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 0
Pavers 1 1
Paving Equipment 2 1
Rollers 2 1
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 0
Off Highway Truck1 1 1
Architectural Coatings Air Compressors 1 1
Note:

1. Off-Highway trucks used to represent water trucks, operating two hours per day.

Other assumptions that were included in the calculations of construction emissions include the following (WEBB-A, p. 3-4):

The existing buildings totaling 192,139 sf will be demolished during Phase 1. The existing parking lot may be demolished in either Phase 1 or Phase 2 and all debris material will be crushed on-site and reused as engineered fill for the basement area.

Therefore, crushing/processing equipment was included in both Phase 1 demolition and Phase 2 grading activities.

The Project site will balance, meaning no soil import or export will be required.

Phase 1’s construction footprint includes off-site improvements to the frontage of Arlington Avenue, which include storm water, potable water, and sewer lines connections and roadway improvements approximately 22-feet wide along the Project frontage. Phase 2 includes off-site road improvements along the Project frontage of Streeter Avenue, which include water line, sewer line, and storm drain line connections and sidewalk and landscaping. In addition, Phase 2 off-site improvements include electrical connections to existing facilities. However, an additional circuit will be required to meet the Project’s estimated electric demand. This will require approximately 1.5 miles of off-site trenching (assumed to be two-feet wide) within Streeter Avenue, Central Avenue, and Hillside Avenue.

To evaluate Project compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control during grading, the Project utilized the option of watering the Project site three times daily which achieves a control efficiency of 74 percent for PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions.

To evaluate Project compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control during the demolition phase, the Project utilized the option of watering the demolished area 2 times daily which achieves a control efficiency of 36 percent for PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions.

As shown in Table 5.2-J, Unmitigated Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions below, peak daily construction emissions from the Project will not exceed any SCAQMD criteria pollutant thresholds (WEBB-A, pp. 4).

City of Riverside Sections 5.2
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Air Quality

5.2-27
Table 5.2-J, Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Activity
Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
SCAQMD Daily Construction
Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
2024 36.90 35.40 74.40 0.09 10.10 3.13
20251 41.20 58.00 122.00 0.13 11.10 4.64
2026 30.70 11.10 41.20 0.03 5.96 1.61
Maximum 41.20 58.00 122.00 0.13 11.10 4.64
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: WEBB-A, Table 2
Notes: Numbers are the maximum of summer or winter emissions in a given year and may not match due to rounding within the model.

1. The emissions shown for 2025 combine the results of two modeling runs, as applicable, and report the maximum peak daily construction emission in 2025.

As shown in the table above, Project’s construction-related emissions will be under the daily SCAQMD construction thresholds and impacts will be less than significant.

Construction-Related Localized Air Quality Impacts
Local significance thresholds (LSTs) were initially established in response to environmental justice and health concerns raised by the public regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. SCAQMD published its Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, which recommends that certain air quality analyses include an assessment of both construction and operational impacts on the air quality of nearby sensitive receptors. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from project sites that are not expected to result in an exceedance of the NAAQS or CAAQS.

SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in air quality impact analyses. This analysis makes use of methodology included in SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. (WEBB-A, p. 6).

The Project is in SRA 23 for the LST. According to the LST methodology, only on-site emissions need to be analyzed. Emissions associated with vendor and worker trips are mobile source emissions that occur off-site. The emissions analyzed under the LST methodology are NOX, CO, PM-10, and PM-2.5. (WEBBA, pp. 6-7).

SCAQMD has provided LST lookup tables to allow users to readily determine if the daily emissions for proposed construction or operational activities could result in significant localized air quality impacts for projects five acres or smaller. The LST thresholds are estimated using the maximum daily disturbed area (in acres) and the distance of the Project to the nearest sensitive receptors (in meters). Based on this SCAQMD guidance and the Project’s equipment list during grading (above), Phase 1 will disturb approximately 2.5 acres per day, and Phase 2 will disturb approximately 6.5 acres per day. Although disturbance in Phase 2 of the Project exceeded five acres per day, per SCAQMD, the LST threshold and tables can be used as a screening tool to determine if dispersion modeling would be necessary.

Section 5.2 City of Riverside
Air Quality Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.2-28
Therefore, the Project’s on-site emissions from CalEEMod and LST-Look-Up Tables for the five-acre site were utilized as a screening-level analysis for Phase 2. (WEBB-A, p. 6).

The LST are estimated using the maximum daily disturbed area (in acres) and the distance of the Project to the nearest sensitive receptors (in meters). The closest sensitive receptors are existing residential properties adjacent to the north and east of the Project site. The closest receptor distance on the LST look-up tables is 25 meters. According to LST methodology, projects with boundaries closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters. Therefore, a receptor distance of 25 meters (85 feet) was used to ensure a conservative analysis. The results are shown for each phase in Table 5.2-K, LST Results for Unmitigated Daily Construction Emissions below.

Table 5.2-K, LST Results for Unmitigated Daily Construction Emissions Pollutant Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
NOX CO PM-10 PM-2.5

2.5-Acre Disturbance Area
LST for 2.5-acre site at 25 meters 187 999 8 5
Phase 1-Demolition – 2024 26.50 70.60 7.73 2.37
Phase 1-Grading – 2024 19.00 19.60 2.71 1.69
Phase 1-Building
Construction – 2024

7.37 10.50 0.34 0.32
Maximum1 26.50 70.60 7.73 2.37
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
5-Acre Disturbance Area
LST for 5-acre site at 25 meters 270 1,577 13 8
Phase 1-Building
Construction – 2025 6.86 10.50 0.29 0.26
Phase 1-Paving – 2025 8.48 11.20 0.36 0.33
Phase 1-Architectural Coatings – 2025 1.18 1.52 0.04 0.03 Phase 2-Grading – 2025 47.90 92.10 5.63 3.27
Phase 2-Building
Construction – 2025 7.10 10.20 0.28 0.26
Phase 2-Building
Construction – 2026 6.71 10.20 0.24 0.22
Phase 2-Paving – 2025 4.41 5.73 0.20 0.18
Phase 2-Architectural Coatings – 2025 1.18 1.52 0.04 0.03 Phase 2-Architectural Coatings – 2026 1.14 1.51 0.03 0.03 Maximum2 54.76 102.60 5.92 3.27
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Source: WEBB-A, Table 5
Notes:

1. Maximum emissions are rounded and shown in bold.

2. Maximum emissions are the greater of either: 1) the sum of Phase 1 building construction and Phase 2 Grading in 2025; 2) the sum of Phase 1 building construction, Phase 2 building construction and Phase 2 paving in 2025; 3) the sum of Phase 1 building construction, Phase 1 paving, Phase 1 architectural City of Riverside Sections 5.2
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Air Quality

5.2-29
Table 5.2-K, LST Results for Unmitigated Daily Construction Emissions Pollutant Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
NOX CO PM-10 PM-2.5
coatings, and Phase 2 building construction in 2025; 4) the sum of Phase 2 building construction and Phase 2 architectural coatings in 2025; or 5) the sum of Phase 2 building construction and Phase 2 architectural coatings in 2026, because these activities overlap. Maximum emissions are rounded and shown in bold.

Operational Emissions
Operational (long-term) emissions are evaluated at build-out of a project. The Project is assumed to be operational in 2026. Operational activities associated with the proposed Project may result in emissions of SCAQMD criteria pollutants VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM-10, and PM-2.5. Operational emissions may be expected from area source emissions, energy source emissions, and mobile source emissions. Mobile source emissions refer to on-road motor vehicle emissions generated from the Project’s traffic and based on the Project-specific Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), which is included in Appendix F of the Draft EIR. Weekend residential trip rates were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, 11th Edition. CalEEMod defaults were utilized for pass-by and diverted trip types. The TIA’s internal capture trip reduction of approximately 22 percent for the residential and supermarket uses was not applied, further providing a conservative analysis. In addition, no reductions were taken for transit and pedestrian accessibility. (WEBB-A, p. 4-5).

Area source emissions from the Project include stationary combustion emissions of natural gas used for space and water heating (shown in a separate row as energy), yard and landscape maintenance, and an average building square footage to be repainted each year. CalEEMod computes area source emissions based upon default factors and land use assumptions. CalEEMod defaults were utilized with the exception of fireplaces, which are not proposed in residential uses.

Energy sources emissions from the Project are generated as a result of activities in buildings that consume energy in the form of natural gas and electricity. Per the City’s municipal code (Chapter 16.26), building electrification is required for the Project. Accordingly, CalEEMod mitigation measure E-15, which requires all electric development was incorporated as part of Project design. However, CalEEMod only quantifies reductions from the residential land use for this measure. Therefore, the natural gas emissions are overstated. Criteria pollutants are emitted during the generation of electricity, but this electricity generation typically takes place off-site at power plants. For this reason, criteria pollutant emissions are generally associated with the power plants themselves, and not individual buildings or electricity users and as such are not reported by CalEEMod. The Project’s design features listed above in Section 5.2.5 reduce electricity consumption and therefore do no change the Project’s criteria pollutant emissions estimates.

The Project’s operational emissions are shown in Table 5.2-L, Unmitigated Estimated Daily Project Operation Emissions (Summer) and Table 5.2-M, Unmitigated Estimated Daily Project Operation Emissions (Winter) below.

Section 5.2 City of Riverside
Air Quality Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.2-30
Table 5.2-L, Unmitigated Estimated Daily Project Operation Emissions (Summer) Source Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
SCAQMD Daily
Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Phase 1
Area 0.80 0.01 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.01 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.01
Mobile 12.20 12.40 114.00 0.28 24.10 6.25
Phase 1 Total 13.01 12.51 115.18 0.28 24.11 6.26
Phase 2
Area 14.70 0.21 22.22 0.00 0.01 0.01
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile 10.60 9.51 87.90 0.22 19.10 4.95
Phase 2 Total 25.30 9.72 110.00 0.22 19.11 4.96
Project Total 38.31 22.23 225.18 0.50 43.22 11.22
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: WEBB-A, Table 3
Note: Emissions reported as zero are rounded and not necessarily equal to zero.

Table 5.2-M, Unmitigated Estimated Daily Project Operation Emissions (Winter) Source Peak Daily Emissions (lb/day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
SCAQMD Daily
Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Phase 1
Area 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.01 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.01
Mobile 11.30 13.30 94.80 0.26 24.10 6.25
Phase 1 Total 11.93 13.40 94.88 0.26 24.11 6.26
Phase 2
Area 12.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile 9.88 10.20 74.10 0.20 19.10 4.95
Phase 2 Total 22.60 10.20 74.10 0.20 19.10 4.95
Project Total 34.53 23.60 168.98 0.46 43.21 11.21
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: WEBB-A, Table 4
Note: Emissions reported as zero are rounded and not necessarily equal to zero.

Evaluation of the data presented on the above tables indicates that criteria pollutant emissions from operation of this Project will not exceed the SCAQMD regional daily thresholds for any criteria pollutant.

Therefore, impacts related to the Project’s operational emissions are less than significant.

According to the LST methodology, LSTs only apply to the operational phase if a project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods of time idling at the site, such City of Riverside Sections 5.2
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Air Quality

5.2-31
as warehouse/transfer facilities. The proposed Project does not include such uses. Therefore, due to the lack of stationary source emissions, no long-term LST analysis is needed. (WEBB-A, p. 7).

Based on the analysis summarized above, the proposed Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard for construction emissions. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? As discussed above, sensitive receptors include residential uses, school playgrounds, childcare facilities, athletic facilities, hospitals, retirement homes, and convalescent homes. The closest sensitive receptors are existing residential properties whose boundaries abut the north and eastern boundary of the Project site. (WEBB-A, p. 6).

As detailed above, the LST analysis completed for the Project determined that the Project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations because the applicable pollutant emissions will not exceed the LST during construction and the Project does not contain uses that are subject to an operational LST analysis. (WEBB-A, pp. 6-7).

WEBB-A conducted an analysis to evaluate impacts to sensitive receptors regarding CO hot spots. A CO “hot spot” is a localized concentration of CO that is above the state or federal 1-hour or 8-hour AAQS. Localized high levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow-moving vehicles. (WEBB-A, p. 8).

Based on the information presented below, a CO “hot spot” analysis is not needed to determine whether the addition of Project related traffic will contribute to an exceedance of either the state or federal AAQS for CO emissions in the Project area. (WEBB-A, p. 8).

The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the Basin by the SCAQMD can be used to assist in evaluating the potential for CO exceedances in the Basin. CO attainment was thoroughly analyzed as part of the SCAQMD’s 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (2003 AQMP) and the Revised 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan). As discussed in the 2003 AQMP, peak carbon monoxide concentrations reported in the 1992 CO Plan in the Basin are due to unusual meteorological and topographical conditions, and not due to the impact of particular intersections. Considering the region’s unique meteorological conditions and the increasingly stringent CO emissions standards, CO modeling was performed as part of the 1992 CO Plan and subsequent plan updates and air quality management plans. (WEBB-A, p. 8).

In the 1992 CO Plan, a CO hot spot analysis was conducted for four busy intersections in Los Angeles at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections evaluated included: Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Highway (Lynwood); Wilshire Blvd. and Veteran Ave. (Westwood); Sunset Blvd. and Highland Ave. (Hollywood); and La Cienega Blvd. and Century Blvd. (Inglewood). These analyses did not predict a violation of CO standards. The busiest intersection evaluated in the 1992 CO Plan and subsequent 2003 AQMP was that at Wilshire Blvd. and Veteran Ave., which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority evaluated the Level of Service in the vicinity of the Wilshire Blvd./Veteran Ave. intersection and found it to be level E at peak morning traffic and Level F at peak afternoon traffic. The hot spot analysis was conducted at intersections subject to extremes in vehicle volumes and vehicle congestion and did not predict any violation of CO standards. Considering Project-related traffic in the General Plan horizon Section 5.2 City of Riverside
Air Quality Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.2-32
year of 2045, the segment with the highest average daily trips would be approximately 75,000 on Arlington Avenue between California Ave and the Project driveway, which is lower than the values studied by SCAQMD. Therefore, it can reasonably be concluded that Project-related traffic would not have daily traffic volumes exceeding those at the intersections modeled in the 2003 AQMP, nor would there be any reason unique to the meteorology to conclude that intersections affected by the Project would yield higher CO concentrations if modeled in detail. Thus, the Project would not result in CO hot spots. (WEBB-A, p. 8).

Thus, the proposed Project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, Therefore, impacts are less than significant.

5.2.8 Proposed Mitigation Measures
An EIR is required to describe feasible mitigation measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.4). There are no mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to air quality since impacts are less than significant.

5.2.9 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures Are Implemented
There are no mitigation measures required to reduce air quality impacts.

City of Riverside Sections 5.3
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Cultural Resources

5.3-1

5.3 Cultural Resources
The focus of this section is to analyze potential impacts related to cultural resources. The following discussion addresses the potential for adverse impacts that could result from the construction and operation as a result of the Project. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 7.0 – Other CEQA Topics.

The Project was analyzed for cultural resources in the Cultural Resources Technical Report for 5261 Arlington Avenue, Riverside, California, prepared by Dudek dated June 2023 (DUDEK-A).

A Supplemental CHRIS Records Search Results was prepared by Dudek dated October 2023 (DUDEK-B) which includes the off-site utility line. The Project in its entirety (including one parcel and offsite improvement areas) is referred to as “Project site,” whereas reference to the one parcel (APN 226-180-015) is referred to as “Project parcel.” (DUDEK-A, p.3). A Cultural Resources Technical Report Memorandum was prepared by DUDEK on April 25, 2024 (DUDEKC). An Adaptive Reuse Study was prepared by Architects Orange dated July 13, 2023 (AO), supported by a Structural Review prepared by Innova Structural Design Group dated July 6, 2023. Additionally, a Feasibility of Re-Tenanting the Former Sears Building at 5261 Arlington Ave, Riverside, CA with Retail or Self Storage Uses (Feasibility of Re-Tenanting Report) was prepared by AXIOM Retail Advisors dated January 14, 2024 (AXIOM). These reports are attached as Appendix C of this Draft EIR.

5.3.1 Setting
The Project is located in a fully developed area surrounded by residential and commercial businesses within the City of Riverside, California.

Environmental Setting
The Project fully developed Project site is a part of California’s Peninsular Range geomorphic province, which is a prominent natural region that extends from the tip of the Baja California Peninsula to the Transverse Ranges (the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains) and includes the Los Angeles Basin, offshore islands, and continental shelf. The eastern boundary is the Colorado Desert Geomorphic Province. The City is surrounded by a series of hills and small mountains. These hills and mountains are between the two dominant San Jacinto and Santa Ana mountain ranges. They include La Sierra/Norco Hills, Mount Rubidoux, Box Springs Mountains, and the many smaller ranges south of the City. (DUDEKA, p. 19).

Two major waterways converge less than one-mile north of the Project vicinity: the Santa Ana River and Tequesquite Arroyo. The natural vegetation within the Project vicinity prior to European colonization would have consisted of annual and perennial herbs, such as various species of sand verbena, thorn mint, and yarrow, as well as annual grasses, shrubs, and trees such as goldenhead, maple, broom, and fir. The Project site is relatively flat with an average elevation of approximately 787 feet above mean sea level gently sloping to the northwest. (DUDEK-A, p. 19).

Soils in the Project site as mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) consist of two series—Buchenau and Hanford. The majority of the Project site is mapped as Buchenau loam, slightly saline-alkali, 0 to 2 percent slopes (57.1 percent) within the northern portion of the Project site, and Hanford coarse sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (42.9 percent) within the southern portion. The Buchenau series is characterized by moderately well drained soils Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.3-2
formed on alluvial fans derived from mixed sources. The Hanford series is characterized as very deep, well drained soils formed in alluvium derived from granitic sources. Typical pedons for the Buchenau and Hanford series extend approximately 5 feet below ground surface. (DUDEK-A, p. 19).

A review of the USGS mineral resources online spatial data for geology indicates that existing development is underlain by Older Quaternary alluvium and marine deposits, generally dating to the Pleistocene geologic age. Terminal Pleistocene-era alluvial formations do have the potential to support the presence of buried archaeological resources. These soils are associated with the period of prehistoric human use and represent ongoing processes of development that have the potential to preserve cultural material in context. (DUDEK-A, p. 19).

As part of the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the Project site, nine subsurface exploratory borings and three infiltration tests were conducted throughout the Project site. Based on the results of the subsurface exploratory borings it was determined that majority of the Project site is composed of undocumented artificial fill soils underlain by natural undisturbed alluvial fan deposits. On the western portion of the Project site, undocumented artificial fill was encountered. On the northern portion of the Project site old alluvial fan deposits were observed directly underlying artificial fill. On the southern portion of the Project site artificial fill underlain by young alluvial fan deposits underlain by older alluvial fan deposits were encountered. (DUDEK-A, pp. 20-21).

Prehistoric Setting
Paleoindian Period (Pre-5500 BC)
Evidence for Paleoindian (pre 5500 BC) occupation in the region is rare in the inland valley with only one possible find located at the shore of Lake Elsinore. Therefore, the discussion below begins with the Archaic Period (8000 BC – AD 500). (DUDEK-A, pp. 41-42).

Archaic Period (8000 BC – AD 500)
The more than 2,500-year overlap between the presumed age of Paleoindian occupations and the Archaic period highlights the difficulty in defining cultural chronology in Southern California. The Archaic pattern is the earliest local socioeconomic adaptation in the region, which has also been termed the Millingstone Horizon. The Archaic pattern is relatively easy to define with assemblages that consist primarily of processing tools, such as millingstones, handstones, battered cobbles, heavy crude scrapers, incipient flake-based tools, and cobble-core reduction. These assemblages occur in all environments across the region with little variability in tool composition. Low assemblage variability over time and space among Archaic sites has been equated with cultural conservatism. (DUDEK-A, p. 42) Late Prehistoric Period (AD 500 to 1769)
The addition of arrow points and ceramics, as well as the widespread use of bedrock mortars is an indication of the Late Prehistoric Period. The fundamental Late Prehistoric assemblage is remarkably similar to the Archaic pattern but includes arrow points and large quantities of fine debitage from producing arrow points, ceramics, and cremations. The appearance of mortars and pestles is difficult to place in time because most mortars are on bedrock surfaces. Ethnohistoric intensive acorn economy extends as far back as AD 500. However, there is no substantial evidence that reliance on acorns, and the accompanying use of mortars and pestles, occurred before AD 1400. Millingstones and handstones persisted in higher frequencies than mortars and pestles until the last 500 years; even then, weighing the economic significance of millingstone-handstone versus mortar-pestle technology is tenuous due to incomplete information on archaeological assemblages. (DUDEK-A, p. 43).

City of Riverside Sections 5.3
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Cultural Resources

5.3-3
Historic Setting
California’s state history is divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1821), Mexican Period (1821–1846), and American Period (1846–present) (DUDEK-A, p. 47).

Spanish Period (1769–1821)
Spanish explorers made sailing expeditions along the coast of southern California between the mid1500s and mid-1700s. In 1942, Catalina Island, San Pedro, and Santa Monica bays were first discovered and named by the Spanish. Approximately 200 years later Spain began the colonization and inland exploration of Alta California. Therefore, in the mid-1700 Spain and the Franciscan Order founded a series missions (religious centers) along the California coast. (DUDEK-A, pp. 47-48).

Mexican Period (1821–1846)
In 1821, New Spain (Mexico and the California territory) won independence from Spain. Which resulted in the Mexican legislative body in California to end isolationist policies designed to protect the Spanish monopoly on trade, and decreed California ports open to foreign merchants. Extensive land grants were established in the interior during the Mexican Period, in part to increase the population inland from the more settled coastal areas where the Spanish had first concentrated their colonization efforts which resulted in ranchos. Southern California was home to landowners largely focused on cattle industry so devoted large tracts to grazing. The number of nonnative inhabitants increased during this period because of the influx of explorers, trappers, and ranchers associated with the land grants. The rising California population contributed to the introduction and rise of diseases foreign to the Native American population, who had no associated immunities. (DUDEK-A, p. 48).

American Period (1846 – Present)
War in 1846 between Mexico and the United States (Mexican-American War) ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ushering California into its American Period. Following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and subsequently, the admission of California as a state in 1850 with the Compromise of 1850. Horticulture and livestock, based primarily on cattle as the currency and staple of the rancho system, continued to dominate the southern California economy through 1850s. The Gold Rush began in 1848, and with the influx of people seeking gold, cattle were no longer desired for just their hides, but also as a source of meat and other goods. During the 1850s cattle boom, rancho vaqueros drove large herds from southern to northern California to feed that region’s burgeoning mining and commercial boom. Cattle were at first driven along major trails or roads such as the Gila Trail or Southern Overland Trail, then were transported by trains when available. The cattle boom ended for southern California as neighbor states and territories drove herds to northern California at reduced prices. Operation of the huge ranchos became increasingly difficult, and droughts severely reduced their productivity. (DUDEK-A, p. 49).

Development of Riverside
In March of 1870, John Wesley North issued a circular entitled “A Colony for California” to promote the idea of founding an agriculture-based colony in California. By the end of the year, present-day Riverside was surveyed and platted with 10-acre parcels and a one-square-mile townsite. The community was originally called “Yurupa” but the name was changed to “Riverside” in December of 1870. The town grew quickly after 1870, reaching over 1,000 residents in its first decade. Between 1880 and 1890, the City’s population grew from approximately 1,350 to 4,600 residents and grew from its original onesquare-mile town center to nearly 56 square miles by 1883. In 1883, the City of Riverside was incorporated. (DUDEK-A, p. 50).

Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.3-4
The citrus industry increased dramatically during the 1880s, with the promotion of the area emphasizing the potential profitability of agriculture. Two navel orange trees from Brazil’s Bahia Province where brought into the Riverside colony. These parent trees produced sweet-tasting seedless fruits, sparking the interest of local farmers, and becoming so popular that the fruits from these trees eventually became known as “Riverside Navel.” The fruit’s popularity helped establish Riverside as a national leader in cultivating oranges and within Riverside created a new economic class: the “orchard aristocrats.” (DUDEK-A, p. 50).

In October 1870 work began to construct the Upper Riverside Canal which was followed by the second canal being constructed in 1878 and finally the third canal was built and named the Gage canal in 1888.

The Gage canal provided stable water supply which bolstered the booming citrus industry in Riverside.

This rapid growth of such a vibrant citrus industry led to Riverside becoming the wealthiest city per capita in the United States by 1895. A blossoming citrus industry strongly influenced the advent of the railroad in Southern California. With the combination of rail transportation, the packing industry and cold storage facilities, Riverside was able to yield over one-half million boxes of oranges in 1890. (DUDEK-A, pp. 50-51).

At the end of the nineteenth century, counties were established, and the area today known as Riverside County was divided between Los Angeles County and San Diego County. In 1917, the U.S. War Department began building up its strength in anticipation of involvement in World War I and announced plans for several new military bases. A group of local Riverside business owners and investors received approval to construct the Alessandro Flying Training Field which later would be known as March Field and later renamed to March Air Force Base (MARB). MARB became a major training installation of the U.S. Army Air Forces. (DUDEK-A, p. 51).

After World War II, Riverside diversified its economy, developing a significant manufacturing sector.

Consisting mostly of light industry, the manufacturing sector generated a range of products, including aircraft components, automotive parts, gas cylinders, electronic equipment, food products, and medical devices. As the county seat and largest city in the region, Riverside also houses numerous legal, accounting, brokerage, architectural, engineering, and technology firms, as well as banking institutions.

The City of Riverside, which had not expanded since its original limits were established in 1883, began annexing new areas to the city in 1954. (DUDEK-A, p. 51).

In 1947, a group of citrus growers and Riverside community organizers lobbied the University of California (UC) Regents to establish a liberal arts college at the UC Citrus Experimentation Station. As a result, the University of California Riverside campus opened in 1954 and was added to the UC system in 1959. (DUDEK-A, p. 51).

New highway development also marked the post-war years. Prior to World War II, U.S. Route 395, and State Routes 60 and 18 (SR-60 and SR-18, respectively) were the only highways through Riverside. In 1957, U.S. 395 was part of an interstate improvement project and became Interstate 215, and the Riverside Freeway (CA Route 91) was added. (DUDEK-A, pp. 51-52).

During the post-World War II era, shifts in commercial development occurred due to automobile culture and sprawling residential development. Downtown centers became deserted as the focus moved to shopping centers to serve sprawl. Companies in Riverside that developed residential tracts also developed early shopping centers, in the 1950s. Large department stores were developed away from the downtown area to be closer to residential areas. Riverside had branches of national department store City of Riverside Sections 5.3
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Cultural Resources

5.3-5
chains including J. C. Penny, Montgomery Ward, and Sears, Roebuck, and Company that accommodated shoppers in residential areas. (DUDEK-A, p. 52).

History of the Project site
Aerial images show the Project site was primarily citrus orchards and farmland between 1931 and 1963, with small residences on site. The residences on site were demolished to make way for the construction of a Mid-Century Modern department store designed by architect Charles Luckman. In 1963, groundbreaking ceremonies for the subject property, the Sears department store building, took place with special guests including building’s architect, Charles Luckman, Riverside store manager T.C. Hujar, Sears California zone manager H.E. Rademacher, and Mayor Dales of Riverside in attendance. The project would include a 184,754 square-foot department store and 24,294-square-foot auto service station accommodating 24 cars for service and 1,722 parking spaces. On May 6, 1964, Sears opened its new department store at 5261 Arlington Avenue, moving its storefront from its former downtown Riverside location. (DUDEK-A, p. 52).

The period after World War II until the 1970s was one of expansion for the Sears department store chain.

The Project site is typical of post-World War II Sears stores and features a large, functional, windowless, free-standing building with twelve entrances, surrounded by a generous parking lot on all sides. All incoming and outgoing truck traffic was managed via a large ramp leading directly to the building’s basement level, located at the north elevation of the department store. The Sears department store building in Riverside included an automobile service center. Building materials included concrete, brick, stone, stainless steel, aluminum, and glass. Sears stopped installing windows in their stores after the 1930s to control the lighting of merchandise from the interior. The functional design of the building was replicated after World War II for department stores. By the mid-1950s, the number of Sears stores in the United States had passed 700. By 1968, there were two Sears stores in the general area: 5261 Arlington Avenue in Riverside (Project site) and 100 Inland Center in San Bernardino. (DUDEK-A, p. 53).

Sears, Roebuck, and Company maintained ownership of the subject property until the mid-2010s. The department store building property has not undergone changes over time, with the exception of the replacement and removal of Sears signage. In the 1990s, the parking lot of the subject property functioned as a driving school. In 2019, Sears closed operations at the store, and the department store building remains vacant and unoccupied in 2022. (DUDEK-A, p. 53).

Architectural Context
Architectural Style: Mid-Century Modern (1940-1975)
The City of Riverside received a State of California Certified Local Government (CLG) grant for the period 2008-09 to prepare a Modernism Historic Context Statement. As a result, a general framework for the evaluation of mid-century buildings and tools for future intensive-level surveys was established. (MCS, p. 2). The Cultural Resources Technical Report prepared by Dudek, re-evaluated the Project site’s eligibility under the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and City of Riverside Modernism Historic Context Statement.

Mid-Century Modern style is reflective of International and Bauhaus styles popular in Europe in the early twentieth century. The development of the Mid-Century Modern style in the United States was largely fostered by World War II. The United States became a manufacturing and industrial leader. Materials and aesthetics evolved to reflect modern innovations that dominated design and construction following the war. (DUDEK-A, pp. 55-56).

Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.3-6
Mid-Century Modern design was embraced intellectually as a departure from the past, but it was economically appealing for its ability to be mass-produced with standardized, affordable, and replicable designs that could accommodate many programmatic needs and site requirements. Due to the need for a style that could meet the demand for mass construction of many property types, the Mid-Century Modern style was widely adopted, following World War II. Mass-produced Mid-Century Modern building materials like concrete, wood, steel, and glass made it the perfect style for growing cities. Examples of Mid-Century Modern style can be found throughout Riverside in commercial, civic, educational, and residential buildings. (DUDEK-A, pp. 55-56).

Riverside Mid-Century Modern Style Commercial Characteristics  Simple geometric forms
 Post-and-beam construction
 Flat or low-pitched gabled roofs
 Flush mounted steel framed windows or large single-paned wood-framed windows  Exterior staircases, decks, patios, and balconies
 Brick or stone often used as primary or accent material.

Postwar Department Store Typology
Automobile travel was prevalent after World War II in Southern California. Therefore, citizens were no longer restricted to downtown urban centers. As a result, development focused on new large standalone stores that provided ample parking on or off-site to appeal to motorists. Large major free-standing department store chains included the May Company, Sears, Macy’s, JC Penney, and Bullock’s. In the 1930s, Sears transitioned from a storefront with windows to a windowless design, which became a prominent feature of the chain. (DUDEK-A, pp. 56-57).

Characteristics of the Department Store Typology
 Large surface parking lots surrounding the building
 Disconnection from the street
 Windowless design
 Free-standing building
 One to two stories in height
 Boxlike massing
 Located outside urban centers
 Architectural styles including Mid-Century Modern, Vernacular Modern, and New Formalist Sears Building Architect: Charles Luckman
In Riverside, Charles Luckman designed two post-war department store buildings in the area including the Sears department store and Auto Center (Project parcel) , and Broadway at the Tyler Mall. The Sears building is a standard design for post-war department stores, which includes a one-story building with large surface parking lots surrounding the building. The design of the Broadway is three stories, and its massing includes interwoven boxes. (DUDEK-A, p. 57).

Sears Department Store
The Sears department store building is a two-story Mid-Century Modern commercial building completed in 1964. The two-story department store is rectangular in plan with a flat roof. It is clad in concrete, brick, tile, and stone. The primary elevation faces Arlington Avenue to the south. As reflected in Figure

5.3-1, Sears Building South and North Elevation, the building features an asymmetrical massing, horizontal planes, and contrasting materials of stone and tile with rectangular roof overhangs that wrap City of Riverside Sections 5.3
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Cultural Resources

5.3-7
around the building. Palm trees are integrated into the overhangs located at the corners of the south elevation. Above the horizontal plane is textured tile and an outline of a Sears sign that has been removed. The south elevation features two entrances which have been boarded up with plywood. The entrances flank a rock wall and have no windows. The original Sears signage has been moved, replaced, and then removed. Dates of the alternations are unknown.

As reflected in Figure 5.3-1, the rear north facing elevation features a folded plate canopy supported by six posts and a breezeblock patio that wraps around to the west side elevation. The rear north facing elevation has an asymmetrical arrangement of two doors and no windows. At the left of the elevation is a sloping loading area with five cargo bays.

The west side elevation along Streeter Avenue is clad in brick and concrete. The west elevation is a flat plane with a recessed alcove. The horizonal canopy bisecting the elevation has trees integrated at the corners of the elevation. It features an asymmetrical fenestration of one entrance that has been boarded up and no windows. An awning on the west side elevation of the building extends to the Auto Center.

The east side elevation is clad in brick and has two entrances which have been covered with plywood.

The entrances flank a rock wall with a horizontal canopy running along the elevation with rectangular canopies at the corners with palm trees incorporated into the design. Above the horizontal plane of the canopy is blank brickwork. (DUDEK-A, p. 35).

Sears Auto Center
The Sears Auto Center building also constructed in 1964, is located to the west of the Sears department store building. It has a rectangular plan, a flat roof, and is clad in metal sheet and brick. As reflected in Figure 5.3-2, Sears Auto Center South and West Elevation, the primary southern elevation features an asymmetrical arrangement of six garage doors next to a recessed alcove which has been boarded up. A horizontal plane extends along the southern elevation above the garage doors. The west side elevation features a rock-clad wall which forms a parapet with palm trees in front of it. The east side elevation has a recessed entrance which has been boarded up, with brick at the base of the elevation. The rear north facing elevation features a recessed alcove with a brick base, six bays of garage doors, and a horizontal canopy that extends along the elevation above. (DUDEK-A, p.35).

Paved parking lots with landscaped meridians surround both of the buildings. Palm trees line the perimeter of the buildings and property, lining the edge of the subject property along Arlington Avenue and Streeter Avenue. (DUDEK-A, p.35).

Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.3-10

5.3.2 Related Regulations
Federal Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.) is legislation intended to preserve historical and archaeological sites in the United States of America. The act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO). Among other things, the act requires federal agencies to evaluate the impact of all federally funded or permitted projects on historic properties (buildings, archaeological sites, etc.) through a process known as “Section 106 Review.” (NPS-A) National Register of Historic Places
Developed in 1981 pursuant to Title 36 CFR Section 60, the NRHP provides an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment. It should be noted that the listing of private property on the NRHP does not prohibit any actions which may otherwise be taken by the property owner with respect to the property. The listing of sites in California to the National Register is initiated through an application submitted to the State Office of Historical Preservation. Applications deemed suitable for potential consideration are handled by the State Historic Preservation Officer. All NRHP listings for sites in California are also automatically added to the California Register of Historical Resources by the State of California. The listing of a site on the NRHP does not generally result in any specific physical protection. Among other things, however, it does create an additional level of CEQA (and NEPA, the National Environmental Protection Act) review to be satisfied prior to the approval of any discretionary action occurring that might adversely affect the resource. (NPS-B)
State Regulations
State Historic Preservation Office
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is a state governmental function created per the NHPA, which called for the creation of a state agency to implement provisions of the law, including the preparation of a comprehensive historic preservation plan and a statewide survey of historical resources (SHPO-A). SHPO administers the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Historical Landmarks, and the California Points of Historical Interest programs. The responsibilities of the SHPO include identifying, evaluating, and registering historic properties; ensuring compliance with federal and state regulatory obligations; encouraging the adoption of economic incentives programs designed to benefit property owners; encouraging economic revitalization by promoting a historic preservation ethic through preservation education and public awareness and, most significantly, by demonstrating leadership and stewardship for historic preservation in California. SHPO maintains the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), which includes the statewide Historical Resources Inventory database. (SHPO-B).

California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires the lead agency to determine whether the proposed development project will have a significant effect on the environment. California Public Resource Code (PRC) Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 deal with the definitions of unique and non-unique archaeological resources and historical resources, respectively.

City of Riverside Sections 5.3
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Cultural Resources

5.3-11
PRC Section 21083.2 directs the lead agency to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources. If the lead agency determines that the project may have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources, the environmental impact report shall address the issue of those resources.

PRC Section 21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)) identify that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” An “historical resource” is any site listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR. The CRHR listing criteria are intended to examine whether the resource in question: (a) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; (b) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (c) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (d) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in pre-history or history.

The term “historical resource” also includes any site described in a local register of historic resources or identified as significant in a historical resources survey (meeting the requirements of California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(q)). CEQA also applies to “unique archaeological resources.” PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a “unique archaeological resource” as any archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

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.

Under PRC Section 21084.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), all historical resources and unique archaeological resources, as defined by statute, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of CEQA The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a historical resource even if it does not fall within this presumption. A site or resource that does not meet the definition of “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource” is not considered significant under CEQA and need not be analyzed further.

Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1) and PRC Section 5020.1(q), a significant cultural impact results from a “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource [including a unique archaeological resource]” due to the “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” In turn, the significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project:

1. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or

2. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.3-12
requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or

3. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

California Register of Historical Resources
In 1992, the California legislature established the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. State law protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of historical resources in CEQA documents as identified in PRC Section 5024.10 et seq. A cultural resource is an important historical resource if it meets any of the criteria found in Section 15064.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. These criteria are similar to those used in federal law. The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is maintained by the state Office of Historic Preservation. Properties listed, or formally designated eligible for listing, on the NRHP are automatically listed on the CRHR, as are state historical landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys. PRC Section 5020.1(j), defines the term “historical resource” to include but is not limited to “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.” Native American Heritage Commission
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), created in statute in 1976, is a nine-member body, appointed by the Governor, to identify and catalog cultural resources (i.e., places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans, and known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands) in California. The NAHC is also charged with ensuring California Native American tribes’ accessibility to ancient Native American cultural resources on public lands (i.e. Sacred Lands File), overseeing the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains and burial items, and administering the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). (NAHC 2023).

Human Remains
According to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, all human remains are assigned special importance and specific procedures are to be used when Native American remains are discovered.

These procedures are discussed within Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 (PRC 5097.98). PRC 5097.98 addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and establishes the NAHC to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains.

California Health & Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 of the California Health & Safety Code collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains (except as allowed under applicable sections of the Public Resources Code), as well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures City of Riverside Sections 5.3
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Cultural Resources

5.3-13
to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, treatment of the remains prior to, during and after evaluation, and reburial procedures. (HSC 7050.5, HSC 7051, and HSC 7054).

Regional Regulations
There are no applicable regional regulations.

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

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

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.

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.

City of Riverside 2025 General Plan EIR
The are no applicable mitigation measures from the Riverside 2025 General Plan EIR that pertain to Cultural Resources.

City of Riverside Phase I General Plan Update
There are no objectives or policies considered applicable to the proposed Project.

City of Riverside Phase I General Plan Update EIR
The are no applicable mitigation measures from the GPUI EIR that pertain to Cultural Resources.

City of Riverside Municipal Code
The following sections of the City’s Municipal Code are applicable and pertain to cultural resources:

Title 20 – Cultural Resources. The purpose of this title is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare by providing for the identification, protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.3-14
improvements, buildings, structures, signs, objects, features, sites, places, areas, districts, neighborhoods, streets, works of art, natural features and significant permanent landscaping having special historical, archaeological, cultural, architectural, community, aesthetic or artistic value in the City for the following reasons:

To safeguard the City's heritage as embodied and reflected in such resources; To encourage public knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the City's past; To foster civic and neighborhood pride and a sense of identity based on the recognition and use of cultural resources;
To promote the enjoyment and use of cultural resources appropriate for the education and recreation of the people of the City;
To preserve diverse and harmonious architectural styles and design preferences reflecting phases of the City's history and to encourage complementary contemporary design and construction;
To enhance property values and to increase economic and financial benefits to the City and its inhabitants;
To protect and enhance the City's attraction to tourists and visitors, thereby stimulating business and industry;
To identify as early as possible and resolve conflicts between the preservation of cultural resources and alternative land uses;
To integrate the preservation of cultural resources and the extraction of relevant data from such resources into public and private land management and development processes; To conserve valuable material and energy resources by ongoing use and maintenance of the existing built environment.

To implement the City's General Plan.

To work in concert with the City's Zoning Code

5.3.3 Comments Received in Response to the Notice of Preparation No comments were received regarding Cultural Resources in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP).

5.3.4 Thresholds of Significance
The City of Riverside has not established local CEQA significance thresholds and instead, defers to the Thresholds of Significance identified in Appendix G (“Environmental Checklist”) to the State CEQA Guidelines.

As identified in the Initial Study(Appendix A) prepared for this Project, and as outlined in Section 4.0 of this Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact in the following area and this topic is not addressed in this DEIR:
 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

City of Riverside Sections 5.3
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Cultural Resources

5.3-15
As identified in the Initial Study prepared for this Project, implementation of the proposed Project will have potentially significant impacts in the following areas and these topics are addressed in this DEIR:
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5; and
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

5.3.5 Project Design Features
The Project proposes to demolish the existing Sears Department Store and Sears Auto Center buildings The proposed Project incorporates architectural features that give a nod to the Mid-Century Modern architectural style denoted by the two Sears structures to provide tribute to these structures. For instance, the double-volume standalone Clubhouse and Leasing Center of the proposed Project is proposed to be located at the core of the proposed development site, paying homage to the MidCentury history by having an similar building placement as of the existing Sears building. The white and tan central massing of the Clubhouse and Leasing Center is highlighted at the entry by a striking, butterfly-style folded metal awning, a typical feature seen in Mid-Century architectural style and which is also found on the north façade of the existing Sears Building. This same butterfly-style metal awning will be repeated on the rear of the clubhouse, tying the existing and newly proposed architecture opening to the main pool recreation area of the Project.

The proposed apartments and townhomes will be designed based on a classical contemporary design, complementing the Clubhouse and Leasing Center, united through colors and enhanced materials. Each residential building is anchored by tower elements on each end, decorated in the enhanced siding used on the Clubhouse, and topped with varying moldings adding richness and texture.

The architecture of the commercial component is inspired on the Mid-Century architectural principles as the color and material palette will follow the neutral style of the existing Sears building, and the canopies at the main entry point will reflect similar language.

5.3.6 Methodology
A Cultural Resources Technical Report (CRTR) and a Supplemental CHRIS Records Search Results was prepared by Dudek date June May 2023 (DUDEK-A) and October 2023 (DUDEK-B), respectively. Both reports are attached as Appendix C. The analysis herein is based upon the CRTR consisting of a records search; search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF); a pedestrian survey of the Project site by qualified architectural historians and a qualified archaeologist; building development and archival research; background research and historic map and aerial review; development of an appropriate prehistoric, ethnographic and historic context for the Project site; recordation and evaluation of one property over 45 years old located within the Project site; and management recommendations.(DUDEK-A, p, 3) The supplemental records search consisted of a CHRIS database records search, NAHC SLF search, background research, including a review of a geotechnical report. Due to the developed nature of the proposed off-site utility line, no exposed soils were present to observe. Thus, no supplemental pedestrian survey was conducted. (DUDEK-B, p. 5) Record Search and Literature Review
On September 3, 2020 and in October 2023 the Eastern Information Center (EIC) completed a records search of the CHRIS database for the Project site plus a one half mile radius buffer. . The search Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.3-16
identified and collected the records for any previously recorded cultural resources and cultural resource studies and reviewed the following lists in an effort to identify resources meeting the respective criteria for the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Points of Historical Interest list, the California Historical Landmarks list, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory list. With respect to the built environment resources, the Built Environment Resources Database, California Inventory of Historical Resources (1976); Historical Maps; Local Inventories; and General Land Office and/or rancho plat maps were also reviewed. (DUDEK-A, p. 23, DUDEK-B, p. 1)
The 1938 Kirkman-Harriman Historical Map was also reviewed. Based on this map, the Project site located is approximately 15 miles southwest of the San Bernardino Mountains, approximately 10 miles northeast of the Santa Ana Mountains, and approximately 5 miles south of the Jurupa Hills and mapped

0.2-mile south of the historical route of the Santa Ana River. The proposed utility line terminates adjacent to the southern bank of the Santa Ana River’s historical route. In this portion of the map, the Santa Ana River and the Project site are encircled by two roadways. Approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the Project parcel and 1.3 miles north of the proposed utility line is an unnamed northeast southwest trending road. To the south, the northeast southwest trending “Spanish Town Road” intersects the Project site. Within the land between the roadways are two (2) unnamed Native American villages. The villages are north of the Santa Ana River and equidistant from the Project site, approximately 4.5 miles to the east and west. It should be noted that this map is highly generalized due to scale and age and may be inaccurate with regards to distance and location of mapped features and was prepared based on review of historic documents and notes more than 100 years following secularization of the missions (in 1833). Although the map contains no specific primary references, it does matches the details documented by the Portolá expedition (circa 1769–1770). The map is a valuable representation of post-colonization mission history; however, it is limited to a specific period of Native American history and substantiation of the specific location and uses of the represented individual features should be verified by archaeological records and/or other primary documentation. (DUDEK-A, p. 26)
Building Development and Archival Background Research
A number of previously conducted studies and building development and archival research was also conducted. The City of Riverside General Plan 2025 Program – Section 5.5 Cultural Resources, City of Riverside Historic Context Statement and City of Riverside Modernism Context Statement documents were reviewed. Building development and archival research were conducted to establish a thorough and accurate historic context for the evaluations and to confirm the building development history. This included a review of Riverside County Building Permits, historical newspaper search, historical topographic maps, and historical aerial photographs. Part of this research also included requests for information from the Riverside Metropolitan Museum, Riverside Archives, and Riverside Historical Society. However, no information has been received to date from these entities. (DUDEK-A, pp. 28-32).

Pedestrian Surveys
An intensive level survey for historic built environment resources was conducted on May 11, 2022. The survey entailed walking only the exterior of the buildings on the subject property, documenting the property with notes and photographs, specifically noting character-defining features, spatial relationships, observed alterations, and examining any historic landscape features on the property. All field practices met the Secretary of Interior’s standards and guidelines for a cultural resources inventory. (DUDEK-A, p. 33).

City of Riverside Sections 5.3
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Cultural Resources

5.3-17
An archaeological pedestrian survey of the Project site was conducted on February 7, 2023. The survey focused on identifying exposed ground surface within landscaped areas and edges of pavement. All available ground surface was inspected for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, groundstone tools, ceramics, fire-affected rock), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, features indicative of structures and/or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, post holes, foundations), and historical artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics, building materials). (DUDEK-A, p. 32).

Native American Communications
As part of the Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on February 8, 2023 to request a Sacred Lands File (SLF) and a list of potentially interested Native American Tribes for the purposes of general Native American consultation under CEQA. (DUDEK-A, p. 27).

Pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18, the City notified Native American tribes in the area of the proposed Project. Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians was the only tribe to request consultation. Detailed responses and results of consultation are included in Section 5.13 - Tribal Cultural Resources of this Draft EIR.

Adaptive Reuse Study, Structural Review and Feasibility of Re-Tenanting Report These documents were prepared to analyze the potential for maintaining the structures or portions of the structure for use of the proposed land uses.

5.3.7 Environmental Impacts
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
The Sears Department Store and Auto Center building were evaluated for historical significance and integrity in consideration of NRHP and CRHR listing and City Landmark designation criteria and integrity requirements. (DUDEK-A, p. 59).

NRHP
To qualify for the NHRP, a property must evaluated within its historic context and represent a significant part of the history, architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture of an area, and it must have the characteristics that make it a good representative of properties associated with that aspect of the past.

In order for a property to be listed in the NRHP or determined eligible for listing, it must be demonstrated to possess age/integrity and significance. To do so, the property must generally be at least 50 years old, look much as it did in the past, and be associated with important past events. (NPS, 7).

Significance. When evaluated within its historic context, a property must be shown to be significant for one or more of the following four Criteria for Evaluation:
 Criterion A – Event. Must be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
 Criterion B – Person. Must be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or  Criterion C – Design/Construction. Must embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.3-18
 Criterion D – Information Potential. Must have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Certain kinds of properties are not usually considered for listing in the National Register: religious properties, moved properties, birthplaces and graves, cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative properties, and properties achieving significance within the past fifty years. However, these properties can be eligible for listing if they meet specific requirements called Criteria Considerations, in addition to meeting one of the four Criterion listed above. (DUDEK-A, pp. 11-12)  Criteria Consideration A – A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance;
 Criteria Consideration B – A building or structure removed from its original location, but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event;
 Criteria Consideration C – A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life;  Criteria Consideration D – A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, from association with historic events.
 Criteria Consideration E – A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived;  Criteria Consideration F – A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or  Criteria Consideration G – A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.

Integrity. Once the significance of a resource has been determined, it must then be assessed for integrity. Integrity is: 1) the ability of a property to illustrate history and; 2) possession of the physical features necessary to convey the aspect of history with which it is associated. The evaluation of integrity is grounded in an understanding of a property’s physical features and how they relate to the property’s significance. Historic properties either retain integrity (that is, convey their significance) or they do not.

To retain integrity, a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the seven aspects of integrity as follows (DUDEK-A, p. 12):
 Location – the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
 Design – the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
 Setting – the physical environment of a historic property.  Materials – the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.  Workmanship - the physical evidence of crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
 Feeling – the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period.  Association – the direct link between an important historic event or person and historic property.

City of Riverside Sections 5.3
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Cultural Resources

5.3-19
CRHR
The criteria for listing resources in the CRHR were developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP. According to PRC Section 5024.1(c) (1–4), a resource is considered historically significant if it: 1) retains “substantial integrity” and; 2) meets at least one of the following four criteria:

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

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history (NHRP Criterion 2)

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. (NHRP Criterion 3)

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (NHRP Criterion 4)
In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than 50 years old may be considered for listing in the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance. The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are the state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys. (DUDEK-A, p. 13).

Local Historic Resource
Title 20 of the City Municipal Code provides for the “identification, protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements, buildings, structures, signs, objects, features, sites, places, areas, districts, neighborhoods, streets, works of art, natural features and significant permanent landscaping having special historical, archaeological, cultural, architectural, community, aesthetic or artistic value in the City.” The criteria to designate, modify the status of, or de-designate Landmarks, Structures or Resources of Merit and Historic Districts, and to modify or de-designate Neighborhood Conservation Areas, are set forth in their definitions in Chapter 20.50.

Landmark
City of Riverside defines a “Landmark” as 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;
Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.3-20

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 or specimen; or

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

An improvement or natural feature meeting one or more of the above criteria, yet not having the high degree of integrity to qualify as a landmark, may qualify as a structure or resource of merit. Further, an improvement or natural feature meeting one or more of the above criteria, yet not formally designated as a landmark by the City Council, may be an eligible landmark. (DUDEK-A, p. 17) Evaluation of NRHP and CRHR Eligibility
The Project site meets the criteria for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criterion C and Criteria 3, respectively. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough characteristics of an architectural style to be a true representation of that style. Although there have been minor alterations to the exterior of the subject property, it has not undergone major exterior alterations and the building displays all its character-defining features of its Mid-Century Modern style and exhibits quality of design. The streetfacing elevations retain the original design features. The Sears building on the Project parcel features asymmetrical massing, contrasting stone and tile materials, and landscaping incorporated into the design. (DUDEK-A, p. 60).

Further, the Sears building was designed by Charles Luckman who was a master mid-century architect who produced many Mid-Century Modern buildings throughout California. The Project parcel is not a significant representation of his work and does not embody a particular phase in his professional trajectory. There are better and more notable examples of Luckman’s work exemplifying this in the region. Nonetheless the property is one of only two remaining Mid-Century Modern department stores in Riverside, the other being the Broadway at Tyler Galleria, also designed by Charles Luckman Associates, which has been modernized. (DUDEK-A, p. 60).

While the Sears building embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Mid-Century Modern department store, it does not appear to possess high artistic values by articulating a particular concept of design to the extent that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. The last component of Criteria 3, representing a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, is the most applicable to districts. The Project parcel does not appear likely to contribute to a potential historic district, due to the lack of a cohesive grouping of intact properties in the area. (DUDEK- A, p. 60).

While there are better examples of the Mid-Century Modern department store typology in the United States, the Project parcel is an excellent and rare example of its type for the City and as a result, could rise to the eligibility thresholds for both national and state listing. For these reasons, the property appears eligible for listing in both the NRHP and CRHR under Criterion C and 3, respectively as it embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction as an excellent and rare example of a Mid-Century Modern department store in Riverside. (DUDEK-A, p. 61).

In addition to meeting Criterion C and Criteria 3, an eligible resource must retain integrity. All properties change over time and it is not necessary for a property to retain all its historic physical features or characteristics. However, the property must retain the essential physical features that enable it to convey its historic identity. The essential physical features are those features that define both why a property is significant and when it was significant. The property is sited in its original location at the intersection of City of Riverside Sections 5.3
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Cultural Resources

5.3-21
Arlington Avenue and Streeter Avenue. Thus, it maintains its integrity of location. The setting surrounding the property has changed little over time. Thus, the subject property retains its integrity of setting and feeling. The building has undergone no exterior alterations. Thus, the subject property retains its integrity in the areas of design, materials, and workmanship. The subject property conveys its historic character as a Mid-Century Modern department store. Thus, it maintains integrity of association.

Therefore, the property retains integrity of location, setting, feeling, design, workmanship, materials, and association. (DUDEK-A, p. 63).

Evaluation of Local Eligibility
The property is eligible as a Landmark under Criteria 1, 3, 5, and 7 and for the reasons discussed above for NRHP and CRHR eligibility and detailed below.
1 (DUDEK-A, p. 61)
Landmark
As explained above, the existing structures exemplify or reflect special elements of the City’s architectural merit as an excellent example of the Mid-Century Modern style and the history of Modernism in Riverside so meet Landmark Criteria 1. The structure embodies the characteristics of a distinctive architectural style, period, or method of construction and is an intact example of a MidCentury Modern department store designed by Charles Luckman, a master architect. Thus, it rises to the level of significance necessary to be considered under Landmark Criteria 3. The property also possesses high artistic value and represents an architectural achievement so meets Landmark Criteria 5.

And finally, the property is one of many examples of a Mid-Century Modern department store and is common throughout the state. However, it is one of the only two Mid-Century Modern department stores in the City of Riverside. In 2009, the City of Riverside’s Modernism context noted that the only other example of a 1960s Mid-Century Modern department store building was Broadway at Tyler Mall, also designed by Charles Luckman Associates. However, while that building still exists and its original design is recognizable, it has undergone more readily apparent modernization over the years than the Sears Department store building. Hence, the property appears to be a rare intact example of its architectural type in the City so meets Landmark Criteria 7.

Historic Eligibility Conclusion
As the property appears to be eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR and Riverside under MC Title 20, it is considered a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA. Under CEQA, a significant impact occurs when there is a “substantial adverse change” to the significance of a historical resource. This includes the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the historical resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. CEQA defines “materially impaired” as work that alters, in an adverse manner, those physical characteristics that convey the resource’s historical significance and justify its inclusion in the CRHR, a local register of historical resources, or an historical resource survey.

Adaptive Reuse
Adaptive reuse of the Sears Department store for residential use was reviewed and considered.

However, as discussed in greater detail in Section 8.0 – Alternatives of this DEIR, options to maintain the existing structure or portions of the structure will not be conducive to re-utilizing the structures for a number of structural reasons. Additionally, as the former Sear’s building has been identified as eligible for historic listing, any adaptive reuse project would be required to be consistent with the Secretary of 1 The Cultural Resources Technical Report also evaluated the Project site for Structure of Merit. However, since property is eligible as a landmark, it need not be evaluated as a Structure of Merit since that is a lessor significance.

Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.3-22
the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards). The National Parks Services indicated that the “Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.” (NPS-X) Attempting to maintain all of the existing walls of the structure and fill the basement level slab will result in a lack of natural daylight and ventilation for residential use. Hence, significant penetrations made along the perimeter of the Sears building will be necessary which would have a significant impact on the structural integrity of the existing building and would not be consistent with the Standards as the alteration would have impacts to features and spaces that characterize a property. Further, the exterior walls would be supported by the basement foundation with new supports placed at grade which may introduce ground settlement issues so is not structurally acceptable. And last, the existing exterior walls do not meet current seismic building code requirements.

The existing walls would need to be reinforced with new walls inside of the existing exterior walls and associated vertical elements from these walls would need to be transferred down to the lowest foundation level with new foundations. Ultimately, the practicality, complexity, and cost of construction would deem the viability of this option unlikely especially due to the fact that the final product would not satisfy the desired adaptive re-use requirements the new structure would not resemble the Sears retail store building due to all of the changes required for new use. (AO, pp. 1-2; INNOVA, pp. 2-3).

Attempting to maintain only the north and south walls of the existing structure and filling the existing basement and pouring a new foundation, would meet the lighting and ventilation requirements for residential use under the California Building Code. However, this option would result in similar structural issues, fewer dwelling units, and would be considered facadism, rather than adaptive reuse and not consistent with the Standards. (AO, p. 2; INNOVA, pp. 2-3).

Attempting to maintain only the south and west walls of the existing structure and filling the existing basement and pouring a new foundation, would meet the lighting and ventilation requirements for residential use under the California Building Code. However, for the same reasons as above, this would not only result in few dwelling units, but result in similar structural issues as identified above. (AO, p. 3; INNOVA, pp. 2-3).

Other uses were also reviewed for consideration as discussed in Section 8.0 – Alternatives of this Draft EIR. “The Re-Tenanting Feasibility Report analyzed whether or not the existing Sears building could be a viable candidate for re-tenanting with retail or self-storage uses. The existing Sears structures were constructed nearly sixty years ago so nearly all major building systems are in need of replacement.

Additionally asbestos is a common occurrence in older buildings so removal of asbestos would be warranted. The existing structures were built for a single owner-user. Creating individual storefronts for multiple smaller rental suites within the structure would require cutting and changing the load-bearing walls which is structurally infeasible. Furthermore, 50 percent of the structures’ total floor area is in the form of a subterranean basement which is not a feasible space for a vast majority of retailers.

Additionally, shopping centers featuring multiple retailers require individual metering of utilities.

However, the existing site was designed such that all utilities are for a single user. Further, tenants like restaurants, gyms and clothing retailers all have very different mechanical, plumbing, and electrical demands. The former Sears Auto Center building is functionally obsolete and not practical for the needs of prospective retail tenants, all of whom are smaller than Sears. Moreover, potential credit-worthy retail and or entertainment tenants that require 100,000 to 200,000 square feet, would not locate to the existing site because it is located within a residential neighborhood location rather than a regional location. Further, this type of tenant would likely require their own prototype building, ultimately requiring demolition of the existing structures. (AXIOM, p. 5).

City of Riverside Sections 5.3
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Cultural Resources

5.3-23
Typical self-storage facilities in Riverside are characteristically “horizontal” in nature. The horizontal storage allows users to drive right up to their garage and unload directly. “Vertical” stacked storage facilities are generally more urban where land is expensive and users are willing to unload, ride the freight elevator, and then wheel their items down a series of corridors to their locker. These facilities are typically located in dense urban areas.

This location within Riverside has had very little population growth or decline. The area has a large majority (approximately 64 percent) of housing units being are owner-occupied as opposed to renters.

Renters move much more frequently, and thus have a higher need for storage units. Currently, there is already sufficient self-storage facilities in the market. Further, as noted in the structural report, the original suspended deck from 1963 would have to be rebuilt. Seismic and live loads for storage facilities under current building code are 2.5 times stronger than they were in 1963. Hence, the building in its existing condition is not structurally sound for vertical storage use. The modifications necessary to bring the structure up to current code and safety requirements, would result in a significant impact to the structural integrity of the existing building (AXIOM, p. 6.) As it is not economically or technically feasible to re-use the building from an architectural, structural, and financial standpoint, the Project proposes to demolish the existing structures. Pursuant to MC

20.25, the Project will be subject to a Certificate of Appropriateness so will comply with this process.

Demolition would result in a significant unavoidable direct impact on a historical resource and would be considered a substantial adverse change under CEQA. (DUDEK-A, p. 66). While mitigation measures would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level, implementation of mitigation measure MM CR12 would require preparation a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) to document the historic nature of the structure. The new development will provide much needed housing to the City. PDFs will provide architectural elements that acknowledge the history of sites Mid-Century Modern architecture however the project will not be consistent with General Plan policies HP-1.3 and HP-5.1 because it will remove the existing structures. Thus, even with implementation of mitigation measure MM CR-1, the Project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Therefore, impacts are significant and unavoidable.

Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
A CHRIS database records search, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, background research, including a review of a geotechnical report, and an archaeological pedestrian survey were conducted as part of an archaeological resources assessment for this Project.

No archaeological or tribal cultural resources were identified within the Project site as a result of these efforts. (DUDEK-A, p. 65; DUDEK-B, p. 5)
The CHRIS record searches indicated that 16 previous cultural resource investigations have been conducted within a half mile radius of the Project site. The investigations were conducted between 1995 and 2021 but none directly addressed the Project site. (DUDEK-A, pp. 23-24; DUDEK-B, p.1). This suggests that the Project site has not been subject to evaluation for the presence of cultural resources prior to its current development. The CHRIS records indicate that no previously recorded cultural resources have been identified within or adjacent to the Project site. No prehistoric sites or resources

2. Mitigation measure MM CR-1 related Human Remains from the Initial Study has been renumbered to MM CR-5 and presented below in Section 5.3.8 for purposes of inclusion in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.3-24
documented to be of specific Native American origin have been previously recorded within the records search area or the Project site. (DUDEK-A, pp. 23-24)
The potential for intact cultural deposits to exist within native soils (encountered from 2 feet below ground surface in some areas) to the depths of proposed ground disturbance (approximately 8 feet below ground surface) is considered moderate. The Project site is within a geographical region known for supporting Native American occupation. The Project site is within the vicinity of two unnamed Native American villages and transportation routes as mapped on the 1938 Kirkman Harriman map.

Additionally, the Project site is within the Santa Ana River watershed, an area that would provide sustainable resources for habitation. (DUDEK-A, p 65; DUDEK-B, p. 5). Archival research indicates that the Project site has been occupied since at least the early twentieth century. Initially used as agricultural land, the Project site transitioned to rural residential properties in the early to mid-twentieth century and again to a fully developed commercial property in the 1960s. (DUDEK-A, p 65).

While the “Spanish Town Road” as identified by the 1938 Kirkman Harriman map, intersects the Project site, no archaeological evidence of this feature was provided in the CHRIS records search results or review of other archaeological information. Additionally, the CHRIS results contained no archaeological evidence of the Native American villages within proximity to the Project site. This is likely because the nearest mapped villages are located outside the Project’s one half mile records search radius. (DUDEKA, pp. 26).

Development of the Project site may have buried unknown cultural resources associated with Native American use and/or historic-period agricultural or residential properties. Native soils underlying the artificial fill consist of alluvial deposits from the terminal Pleistocene. These soils are considered contemporaneous with human use, and therefore retain the potential to preserve cultural material in context. (DUDEK-A, p. 65, DUDEK-B, p. 5)
Though the archaeological survey was negative for cultural resources, the existing development within the Project site provided little to no observable ground surface for inspection; thus, the negative findings of the archaeological survey are an unreliable indicator of the archaeological sensitivity of the Project site. Previous and proposed ground disturbances were considered in light of the potential for yet unknown archaeological resources and human remains to be encountered leading to a determination that there is a potential for an inadvertent discovery of unknown archaeological resources and human remains to occur during Project implementation.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM CR-2 through MM CR-56 would ensure the proper treatment of any archaeological resources and human remains encountered during ground disturbing activities. (DUDEK-A, p 65). Thus, with implementation of mitigation measures MM CR-2 through MM CR-56, the Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Therefore, impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

5.3.8 Recommended Mitigation Measures
An EIR is required to describe feasible mitigation measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.4). Mitigation measures were evaluated for their ability to eliminate or reduce the potential significant adverse impacts to cultural resources. Mitigation measure MM CR-1 below, will not reduce potentially significant impacts to historical resources as the existing structures will be demolished. However, CEQA requires all feasible mitigation to be undertaken.

City of Riverside Sections 5.3
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Cultural Resources

5.3-25
In the event of an inadvertent discovery the mitigation measures MM CR-2 through MM CR-56 shall be implemented to eliminate or reduce potentially significant impacts to cultural resources to below the level of significance.

MM CR-1 Historical Resources. Prior to the demolition or rehabilitation of the existing structures on the Project parcel, the City shall ensure preparation of Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level I or Short Format-like documentation in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation.

All work shall be conducted by an architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for architectural history and/or history.

HABS standards require large-format black-and-white photography, with the original negatives having a minimum size of 4 inches by 5 inches. The photographer shall be familiar with the recordation of historical resources in accordance with HABS guidelines, and digital photography, roll film, and manipulation of images are not acceptable.

Photographs shall include a photo index, and field notes, and be identified and labeled using HABS standards outlined in National Park Service’s guidelines Preparing HABS/HAER/HALS Documentation - Transmittal Guidelines.

A draft laser copy (or digital PDF) of the finished photographs formatted to the photo index shall be reviewed and approved by a historic preservation program staff member with City of Riverside prior to final archival prints being made. A copyright release form signed by the photographer releasing copyright of the large format photographs into the public domain for public benefit shall be required with the deliverables. One original copy of the final HABS-like documentation packet shall be offered to the following entities:
 City of Riverside Historic Preservation Program (administered through the Historic Preservation, Neighborhoods and Urban Design Division of the Community Development Department);
 Riverside Public Library;
 Riverside Historical Society; and
Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.3-26
 Riverside Metropolitan Museum.

MM CR-2 Archaeological Resources – Inadvertent Finds. The applicant/owner/developer will retain a qualified archaeological principal investigator, as defined above, to assess information available (final grading and construction plans, geotechnical testing results, as-built plans, etc.) and determine the depth at which native soils exist and would be impacted by project implementation. The depth of native soils shall be included in the Plan so as to guide when cultural (archaeological and Native American) monitoring is appropriate. Impacts to cultural resources shall be minimized through implementation of pre- and post- construction tasks. Tasks pertaining to cultural resources include the development of a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Plan).

The purpose of the Plan is to outline a program of monitoring occurrence as well as treatment and mitigation in the case of an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources during ground-disturbing phases (including but not limited to preconstruction site mobilization and testing, grubbing, removal of soils for remediation, construction ground disturbance, construction grading, trenching, and landscaping) and to provide for the proper identification, evaluation, treatment, and protection of any cultural resources throughout the duration of the Project. This Plan should define the process to be followed for the identification and management of cultural resources in the Project site during construction. The existence of and importance of adherence to this Plan should be stated on all Project site plans intended for use by those conducting the ground disturbing activities. The Plan will also include the conditions under which Native American and archaeological monitoring is required pursuant to MM CR-4, below, and the manner of facilitation. Consultation. 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.

MM CR-3 Archaeological Resources - Preparation of a WEAP. Prior to commencement of construction activities for all phases of Project implementation, the project applicant/owner/developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, to prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). The WEAP shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. All construction personnel and monitors who are not trained archaeologists shall be briefed regarding inadvertent discoveries prior to the start of construction activities. A basic presentation and handout or pamphlet shall be prepared in order to ensure proper identification and treatment of inadvertent discoveries. The purpose of the WEAP training is to provide specific details on the kinds of cultural materials that may be identified during construction of the Project and explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological City of Riverside Sections 5.3
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Cultural Resources

5.3-27
resources. Each worker shall also learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, or human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection, and the immediate contact of the site supervisor, tribal monitor and archaeologist retained for the Project.On call Project Archaeologist. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Property Owner/Developer shall provide a letter from a County certified Archaeologist and Paleontologist stating that the Property Owner/Developer has retained these individuals, and that the Archaeologist and Paleontologist shall be on call during all grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities in native sediments.

MM CR-4 Archaeological Resources – Monitoring. A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to be present during initial ground disturbance. Initial ground disturbance is defined as the removal of the upper two to eight feet below ground of existing soil. The timing of when cultural resource monitoring (archaeological and Native American) shall be required shall be outlined in the Cultural Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan pursuant to MM CR-2. More than one monitor may be required if multiple areas within the Project site are simultaneously exposed to initial ground disturbance causing monitoring to be hindered by the distance (more than 200 feet apart) of the simultaneous activities. A qualified archaeological principal investigator, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, shall oversee and establish monitoring efforts as needed (increase, decrease, or discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the observed potential for construction activities to encounter cultural deposits or material. The archaeological monitor will be responsible for maintaining daily monitoring logs.

In the event that potential prehistoric or historical archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities for the project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop and a qualified archaeologist must be notified immediately to assess the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, data recovery, or monitoring may be warranted. If Native American resources are discovered or are suspected, each of the consulting tribes for the Project will also be notified.

An archaeological monitoring report shall be prepared within 60 days following completion of ground disturbance and submitted to the City for review. This report shall document compliance with approved mitigation, all implemented monitoring efforts, and include an appendix with daily monitoring logs. The final report shall be submitted to the City and the EICTreatment 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:

Section 5.3 City of Riverside
Cultural Resources Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.3-28

1. Consulting Tribes Notified: within 24 hours of discovery, the consulting tribe(s) shall be notified via email and phone. The developer shall provide the city evidence of notification to consulting tribes. 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 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 Museum of Riverside 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 consulting tribes.

MM CR-5 Cultural Sensitivity Training. The Secretary of Interior Standards County certified archaeologist and Native American monitors shall attend the pre-grading City of Riverside Sections 5.3
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Cultural Resources

5.3-29
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.

MM CR-56 Archaeological Resources – Human Remains. In the event that human remains and associated funerary objects are inadvertently encountered during construction activities, the remains and funerary objects shall be treated in accordance with state and local regulations that provide requirements with regard to the accidental discovery of human remains, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In accordance with these regulations, if human remains are found, the County Coroner must be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of either the Project site or nearby area (no less than 100 feet), is reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains can occur until the County Coroner has determined if the remains are potentially human in origin.

If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, he or she is required to notify the NAHC. The NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant must then complete their inspection and determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition and treatment of the human remains. (This mitigation measure was identified as MM CR-1 in the Initial Study. This mitigation measure has been renumbered to MM CR-56 for purposes of inclusion in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program).

5.3.9 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures Are Implemented
It was determined that existing structures on the Project parcel is eligible for listing as a historical resource according to NRHP, CRHR, under Criteria C/3 and as City of Riverside Cultural Heritage Landmark under Criteria 1, 3, 5, and 7 and Structure of Merit under Criteria 1, 4, and 6. As such, the existing structures are a historical resource under CEQA. Since the Project proposed to demolish the existing structures, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. While there are no mitigation measures that could reduce impacts from the demolition, the Project will be required to comply with mitigation measure MM CR-1.

Nonetheless, even with implementation of mitigation measure MM CR-1, demolition of the existing structures will result in direct impact to a historical resource so impacts will be significant and unavoidable and a statement of overriding considerations will be required prior to Project approval.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM CR-2 through MM CR-56, will reduce impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant.

City of Riverside Section 5.4
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Energy

5.4-1

5.4 Energy
The focus of this section is to analyze potential impacts related to energy. The following discussion addresses the potential for adverse impacts that could result from the construction and operation as a result of the Project. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 7.0 – Other CEQA Topics.

The analysis in this section is based on the Technical Memorandum – Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the Arlington Mixed Use Development Project, City of Riverside, California, prepared by Albert A. Webb Associates dated October 27, 2023 (WEBB-A) and the Energy Consumption Calculations, prepared by Albert A. Webb Associates, July 2023 (WEBB-B). These documents are contained within their entirety in Appendix B to this document.

5.4.1 Setting
Energy sources are classified as non-renewable if they cannot be replenished in a short period of time.

Therefore, non-renewable energy resources include fossil fuels. Fossil fuels, which consist of oil, coal, natural gas, and associated byproducts, provide the energy required for the vast majority of motorized vehicles and generation of electricity at power plants. Thus, the discussion of energy conservation most relevant to the Project is focused on Project-generated electricity demand, natural gas demand, and fuel consumption.

Electricity
The City of Riverside (City) is the primary distribution provider for electricity in the City and, as such, operates its own electrical utility, known as the City of Riverside Public Utilities (RPU). RPU provides service to most of the City including the Project site.

The City and RPU are dedicated to conserving energy generated by fossil fuels and increasing its portfolio of renewable energy sources. In 2022, 45 percent of RPU’s energy supply was generated from renewable energy sources, which includes geothermal, wind, and solar power (RPU 2023a). RPU entered into its first significant contracts for renewable energy in 2002 and 2003, met a 20 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goal in 2010, and exceeded the RPS mandate of 33 percent by the year 2020, three years ahead of schedule. (IRP, p. 1-2). RPU’s future forecasted RPS levels show that they will exceed 50 percent by 2023, yet is not forecasted to meet the 60 percent by 2030 Senate Bill (SB) 100 procurement targets; however, by 2024, sufficient excess renewable energy procurement volumes will have been accumulated (or saved) to “fill in” the renewable energy shortfalls between 2025 and 2030. Thus, RPU will be able to satisfy its minimum RPS compliance obligations in all compliance periods through 2030 per SB 100 (IRP, p. 12-3).

RPU’s electricity consumption by sector as of 2021 is provided in Table 5.4-A, RPU Electricity Consumption in 2021 (GWh).

Section 5.4 City of Riverside
Energy Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.4-2
RPU Electricity Consumption in 2021 (GWh)1
Agricultural
& Water
Pump
Commercial
Building
Commercial
Other Industry
Mining &
Construction Residential Streetlight
Total
Usage

29.52 970.42 50.25 277.60 16.30 753.58 16.56 2,114.25
Source: CEC2021a
Notes:

1. All units are in millions of kilowatt-hours (GWh) and rounded to the nearest whole number.

As reported by the California Energy Commission (CEC), RPU consumed approximately 2,114 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 2021, of which approximately 754 million kWh were consumed by the residential sector and 50 million kWh were consumed by the commercial building sector, which are the sectors most relevant to the proposed Project. (CEC 2021a).

Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SCG) provides natural gas service to the City. As a public utility, SCG is under the jurisdiction of California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) but can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies (CPUC NGC). SCG is the principal distributor of natural gas in southern California, providing retail and wholesale customers with transportation, exchange, and storage services, and also procurement services to most retail core customers. SCG is a gas-only utility and, in addition to serving the residential, commercial, and industrial markets, provides gas for enhanced oil recovery and electric generation customers in southern California. (CGEU 2022, p. 112).

California’s existing gas supply portfolio is regionally diverse and includes supplies from on- and offshore California sources, southwestern United States supply sources, the Rocky Mountains, and Canada (CGEU 2022, p. 15). The CPUC regulates natural gas utility service for approximately 10.8 million customers that receive natural gas from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), SCG, San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), Southwest Gas, and several smaller natural gas utilities. (CPUC NGC).

Natural gas demand statewide, including volumes not served by utility systems, is expected to decrease at an annual average rate of 1.1 percent through 2035, and residential gas demand is expected to decline at an annual average rate of 2.4 percent, commercial demand is projected to decrease at an annual average rate of 1.8 percent per year. While gas-fired generation and gas storage will continue to be important technologies that support long-term electric demand growth and growing integration of intermittent renewable resource generation, overall gas demand for electric generation is expected to decline due to statewide efforts to minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions electric energy efficiency programs and additional renewable power generation.

SCG projects total gas demand to decrease at an annual rate of approximately 1.5 percent from 2022 to 2035. By comparison, the 2020 California Gas Report projected an annual decline in demand of 1.1 percent over the forecast horizon. The difference between the two forecasts is caused primarily by the modest economic growth, the forecasted energy efficiency and fuel substitution, tighter standards created by revised Title 24 Codes and Standards, and renewable energy goals that impact gas-fired electricity. (CGEU 2022, p. 115).

City of Riverside Section 5.4
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Energy

5.4-3
SCG also implements energy efficiency (EE) programs. SCG’s conservation and energy efficiency activities are intended to help customers evaluate energy efficient options, and encourage customers to install energy efficient equipment, such as offering rebates for new hot water heaters (CGEU 2022, p. 133). SCG’s cumulative annual energy efficiency cumulative savings goals for the residential sector, core commercial and industrial sector, and noncore commercial and industrial sector are expressed in billion cubic feet (Bcf) (CGEU 2018, p. 134). SCG’s goals for energy efficiency for 2023-2035 period are based on the 2020 EE forecast scaled to the goals approved in the recent EE proceeding goals decision, D.21- 09-0371
, which set EE goals through 2032. (CGEU2022, p. 134). SCG is subject to energy efficiency targets established by the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act, or Senate Bill 350 (SB 350). SB 350, which was signed into law on October 7, 2015, extends the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) target to 50 percent by 2030, which later was amended by 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2019, or Senate Bill 100 (SB 100). Additionally, the law requires the state to double statewide energy efficiency savings in both the electric and natural gas sectors by 2030. (CGEU 2022, pp. 163).

Natural gas service must be provided in accordance with SCG’s policies and extension rules on file with CPUC at the time contractual agreements are made. The viability of natural gas is based on present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. The natural gas consumption by sector within SCG’s service area is provided in Table 5.4-B, Natural Gas Consumption in SCG Service Area (2021).

Natural Gas Consumption in SCG Service Area (2021)
1 Agricultural
& Water
Pump
Commercial
Building
Commercial
Other Industry
Mining &
Construction Residential
Total
Usage
84 844 94 1,650 169 2,261 5,101
Source: CEC2021b
Notes:

1. All numbers in millions of therms and rounded to the nearest whole number.

As shown in the table above, SCG consumed approximately 5.1 billion therms in 2021, of which approximately 2.3 billion therms were consumed by the residential sector and 94 million therms were consumed by the commercial building sector, which are the sectors most relevant to the proposed Project. (CEC 2021b).

Transportation Fuel
Fossil fuels are known to create the United States’ transportation fuels. Fossil fuel energy sources include oil, coal, and natural gas, which are non-renewable resources that formed when prehistoric plants and animals died and were gradually buried by layers of rock; however, fossil fuel industries drill or mine for these energy sources, burn them to produce electricity, or refine them for use as fuel for heating or transportation. (USDOE).

The U.S. and specifically California is defined by the automobile: in 2023, there were over 35.6 million vehicles registered in California by the Department of Motor Vehicles (CDMV 2023). In 2021, 38.7

1. Source: CPUC D.17.09.025
Section 5.4 City of Riverside
Energy Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.4-4
percent2 of all of California’s energy use was used for transportation, approximately 2,785.1 trillion British thermal units (Btu) (USEIA F30). In 2021, California consumed 511,318 thousand barrels3 of petroleum for transportation uses, which is approximately 2,730.9 trillion Btu. (USEIA CT7).

The 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR), which provides the results of the California Energy Commissions assessments of a variety of energy related issues facing California. The IEPR includes a transportation energy and demand forecast that considers vehicles and associated fuels, incorporates consumer preference, regulatory impacts, economic and demographic projects, projected improvements in technology, and other market factors. (TEFA, pp. 3-4). The most recent forecast estimated that between 2021 and 2035, gasoline fuel demand for transportation in California will decline primarily due to increases in electrification and the use of zero emission vehicles (ZEV) (TEFA, pp. 50- 70). Petroleum-based fuels will continue to represent the largest shares of transportation energy demand. Under the high-demand case for Light Duty Vehicle, gasoline consumption will drop from approximately 13.8 billion gross gasoline equivalents (GGE) in 2020 to approximately 11 billion GGE in 2035. Electricity consumption would increase from less than 1 billion GGE in 2020 to approximately 4 billion GGE which includes raw energy used by the plug in-vehicles (PEV), but also the gasoline energy avoided by using more PEVs. Diesel energy forecast is less than 1 GGE in 2020 and will remain roughly the same in 2035. (TEFA, p. 67).

5.4.2 Related Regulations
Federal Regulations
At the federal level, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), the United States Department of Energy (DOE), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) are three agencies with substantial influence over energy policies and programs. Federal agencies influence and regulate transportation energy consumption through establishment and enforcement of fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks, through funding of energy-related research and development projects, and through funding for transportation infrastructure improvements. Major federal energyrelated laws and plans are discussed below.

Energy Independence and Security Act
On December 19, 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) was signed into law.

Among other key measures, the Act would do the following, which would aid in the reduction of national mobile and non-mobile GHG emissions:
1 Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. 2 Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products, procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.
3 While superseded by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) and USEPA actions described above, EISA also set miles per gallon targets for cars and light trucks

2. 2,785.1 trillion Btu (from transportation consumption in California) / 7,202.6 trillion Btu (from total energy consumption in California) = approximately 38.7 percent.

3. One barrel (in reference to petroleum) is a unit of volume equal to 42 U.S. gallons (USEIA Glossary) City of Riverside Section 5.4
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Energy

5.4-5
and directed the NHTSA to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks.

Additional provisions of the EISA address energy savings in government and public institutions, promoting research for alternative energy, additional research in carbon capture, international energy programs, and the creation of "green jobs." (WH)
Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)
The Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 2018 grants specific authority to the President of the U.S. to fulfill obligations of the U.S. under the international energy program; provide for the creation of a Strategic Petroleum Reserve capable of reducing the impact of severe energy supply interruptions; conserve energy supplies through energy conservation programs; provide for improved energy efficiency of motor vehicles, major appliances and other consumer products; provide a means for verification of energy data to assure the reliability of energy data; and to conserve water by improving the water efficiency of certain plumbing products and appliances. Furthermore, the EPCA establishes fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the US. (EPCA 2018).

The NHTSA, which is part of USDOT, is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and revising existing standards under the EPCA. In 2012, NHTSA established passenger and light truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy (café) standards for model years (MY) 2017 through 2021 which required, on an average industry fleet-wide basis, a range from 40.3 to 41.0 miles per gallon in model year (MY) 2021(NHTSA 2012). In 2019, the NHTSA and USEPA amended certain café and greenhouse gas emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish new standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026. However, in March 2022, the NHTSA and USEPA revised the standards covering MY 2024 through 2026 and would require an industry fleet-wide average of roughly 49 mpg in MY 2026. (NHTSA 2022).

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) builds upon the initiatives established in the ISTEA legislation discussed previously (DOT). TEA-21 authorizes highway, highway safety, transit, and other efficient surface transportation programs (FHWA 2015). TEA-21 continues the program structure established for highways and transit under ISTEA, such as flexibility in the use of funds, emphasis on measures to improve the environment, and focus on a strong planning process as the foundation of good transportation decisions. TEA-21 also provides for investment in research and its application to maximize the performance of the transportation system through, for example, deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems, to help improve operations and management of transportation systems and vehicle safety. (FHWA 1998).

Energy Star Program
In 1992, the USEPA introduced Energy Star as a voluntary labeling program to identify and promote energy-efficient products to reduce GHG emissions. The program applies to major household appliances, lighting, computers, and building components, such as windows, doors, roofs, and heating and cooling systems. Under this program, appliances that meet specification for maximum energy use established under the program are certified to display the Energy Star label. In 1996, the USEPA joined with the Energy Department to expand the program, which now includes qualifying commercial and industrial buildings as well as homes.

Section 5.4 City of Riverside
Energy Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.4-6
State Regulations
At the State level, the CEC and CPUC are two agencies with authority over different aspects of energy.

CPUC regulates privately-owned utilities in the energy, rail, telecommunications, and water sectors. CEC collects and analyzes energy-related data, prepares statewide energy policy recommendations and plans, promotes, and funds energy efficiency programs, and adopts and enforces appliance and building energy efficiency standards. California is exempt under federal law from setting State fuel economy standards for new on-road motor vehicles. Major State energy-related laws and plans are discussed below.

California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency and is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the California Clean Air Act, meeting State requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act, and the establishment of State ambient air quality standards.

CARB is also responsible for setting emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for other emissions-sources including consumer goods and off-road equipment. In general, these vehicle emissions standards are more restrictive than those established at the federal level. CARB also established passenger vehicle fuel specifications, which became effective in March 1996.

Advanced Clean Cars
In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars Program, a new emissions-control program for model year 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHGs with requirements for greater numbers of ZEVs. By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, the new automobiles will emit 40 percent fewer GHG emissions and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions. The program also requires car manufacturers to offer for sale an increasing number of ZEVs each year, including battery electric, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (EV) (CARB ACCP).

In December 2012, CARB adopted regulations allowing car manufacturers to comply with California's GHG emissions requirements for model years 2017-2025 through compliance with the USEPA GHG requirements for those same model years (CARB 2012). In 2022, the Advanced Clean Cars II program was approved, which will rapidly scale down light-duty passenger car, pickup truck and SUV emissions starting with the 2026 model year through 2035. By 2035 all new passenger cars, trucks and SUVs sold in California will have zero emissions.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Executive Order S-01-07 was signed on January 18, 2007, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and mandated a statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. In 2009, CARB adopted the LCFS and began implementation on January 1, 2011.

CARB approved some amendments to the LCFS in December 2011, which were implemented on January 1, 2013. In September 2015, the Board approved the re-adoption of the LCFS, which became effective on January 1, 2016, to address procedural deficiencies in the way the original regulation was adopted. In 2018, the Board approved amendments to the regulation, which included strengthening and smoothing the carbon intensity benchmarks through 2030 in-line with California's 2030 GHG emission reduction target enacted through SB 32, adding new crediting opportunities to promote zero emission vehicle adoption, alternative jet fuel, carbon capture and sequestration, and advanced technologies to achieve deep decarbonization in the transportation sector. (CARB 2023a).

City of Riverside Section 5.4
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Energy

5.4-7
California Energy Commission (CEC)
The CEC was formed by Assembly Bill 1575 (AB 1575), also known as the Warren-Alquist Act (CEC WAA) and is the State’s primary energy policy and planning agency. AB 1575 also requires EIRs to consider wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy and was the driving force behind the creation of Appendix F to the CEQA Guidelines. CEC was established to address the State’s energy challenges and is responsible for the creation of the State Energy Plan. The State Energy Plan identifies the emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The State Energy Plan recommends that the State assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the fewest environmental and energy costs. The State Energy Plan also identifies a number of strategies, including providing assistance to public agencies and fleet operators, encouraging urban designs that reduce vehicles miles traveled, and accommodating pedestrian and bicycle access.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
CPUC regulates investor-owned electric and natural gas utilities operating in California, which includes SCG (CPUC Electric). The CPUC regulates the natural gas rates and natural gas services, including inState transportation over the utilities’ transmission and distribution pipeline systems, storage, procurement, metering, and billing (CPUC NGC). In 2008, the CPUC adopted the state’s first “LongTerm Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan” for achieving energy savings in various sectors throughout California. In 2011, the Strategic Plan was updated to include a chapter related to lighting (CPUC EESP).

California Energy Code – Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations Energy consumption by new buildings in the State is regulated by The California Energy Code via the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These efficiency standards (commonly referred to as Title 24 standards) apply to newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings. They are designed to reduce wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and enhance outdoor and indoor environmental quality (CEC Standards). Building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building permit process, via plan check and inspections (CEC Standards).

The California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) was established in 1976 to reduce California’s energy consumption. Energy use standards in the code, referred to as Building Energy Efficiency Standards, are updated on an approximately three-year cycle. The current code is the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and it went into effect on January 1, 2023. (CEC Standards).

The purpose of Title 24, specifically Part 11, known as the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code, is to encourage sustainable construction practices that reduce negative impacts on the environment through planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. The CALGreen Code is applicable to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure throughout the State (CALGreen). The current cycle of the CALGreen Code was adopted in 2022 and became effective January 1, 2023. Applicable requirements of the CALGreen Code can be found in Section 5.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Over the next 30 years, the 2022 Energy Code is estimated to provide $1.5 billion in consumer benefits and reduce 10 million metric tons of GHGs, equivalent to taking nearly 2.2 million cars off the road for a year. Expanded adoption of new energy-efficient technologies will help reduce costs of the technology Section 5.4 City of Riverside
Energy Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.4-8
over time. (CEC Infographic). Local government agencies may adopt and enforce energy standards for new buildings, provided that standards meet or exceed those contained in Title 24 (CEC LO). The City’s municipal code, Chapter 16.13 – Energy Code, adopted the 2022 Energy Code standards. (RMC).

California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires each jurisdiction in California (cities, counties, and approved regional solid waste management agencies) responsible for enacting plans and implementing programs to divert 25 percent of their solid waste by 1995 and 50 percent by year 2000. Later legislation mandates the 50 percent diversion requirement be achieved every year. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) oversees and provides assistance to local governments as they develop and implement plans to meet the mandates of the AB939 and subsequent legislation. (CalRecycle 2023) As of 2007, jurisdictional diversion rates are no longer calculated; with the passage of the Per Capita Disposal Measurement System (SB 1016) only per capita disposal rates are measured. CalRecycle compares each jurisdiction’s reported disposal tons to population to calculate per capita disposal in pounds per person per day (CalRecycle JD). The City achieved an annual per capita disposal rate of 8.2 pounds per day per resident, and 16.8 pounds per day per employee in 2021, the most recent data available (CalRecycle Riverside).

AB 939 further requires each city to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) to describe how it would manage solid waste generated within the city (PRC 41000-41003). The City’s solid waste management must be consistent with the hierarchy of waste management practices of AB 939, which are (in order of priority): (1) source reduction; (2) recycling and composting; (3) environmentally safe transformation and environmentally safe land disposal, at the discretion of the city or county (PRC 40051). SRREs shall place primary emphasis on implementation of all feasible source reduction, recycling, and composting programs while identifying the amount of landfill and transformation capacity that will be needed for solid waste which cannot be reduced at the source, recycled, or composted.

Each SRRE shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following components for solid waste generated in the jurisdiction of the plan: (a) A waste characterization component; (b) A source reduction component; (c) A recycling component; (d) A composting component; (e) A solid waste facility capacity component; (f) An education and public information component; (g) A funding component; and (h) A special waste component (PRC 41000-41003).California local jurisdictions are required to submit annual reports to CalRecycle to update it on their progress toward implementing the AB 939 goals (CalRecycle 2019).

AB 341 (2011) amended the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to include a provision declaring that it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020, and annually thereafter (PRC 41780.01). The state did not meet its 75 percent by 2020 recycling goal set out in AB 341. However, CalRecycle identified five strategies and three additional focus areas that can be pursued by the state to reach the 75 percent goal (CalRecycle 2020).

Riverside’s Public Works Department provides solid waste services to the City of Riverside, including the Project site (GP EIR, p.5.16-15).

Renewable Portfolio Standard
Established in 2002 under SB 1078, accelerated in 2006 under SB 107 and again in 2011 under SBX1-2, California's RPS requires retail sellers of electric services to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020 (SB 1078, SB 1368). In 2015, SB City of Riverside Section 5.4
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Energy

5.4-9
350 was signed into law, which mandated a 50 percent mandate by December 31, 2030. SB 350 includes interim annual targets with three-year compliance periods. In addition, SB 350 requires that 65 percent of procurement must be derived from long-term contracts of 10 or more years. In 2018, SB 100 was signed into law, which again increases the mandate to 60 percent by 2030 and requires all California's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045. SB 100 took effect on January 1, 2019 (CPUC RPS). Utilities are required to disclose to consumers “accurate, reliable, and simple to understand information on the sources of energy, and the associated emissions of greenhouse gases, which are used to provide electric services.” (PUC 398.1).

Assembly Bill 1109
Assembly Bill 1109 (AB 1109), the Lighting Efficiency and Toxic Reduction Act, required the establishment of minimum energy efficiency standards for all general purpose lights. The standards are structured to reduce average statewide electrical energy consumption by not less than 50 percent from the 2007 levels for indoor residential lighting and not less than 25 percent from the 2007 levels for indoor commercial and outdoor lighting by 2018 (AB-1109).

Senate Bill 100
Senate Bill 100 (SB 100), signed September 10, 2018, is the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018. SB 100 established a landmark policy requiring renewable energy and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of electric retail sales to end-use customers by 2045. SB 100:
 Sets a 2045 goal of powering all retail electricity sold in California and state agency electricity needs with renewable and zero-carbon resources — those such as solar and wind energy that do not emit climate-altering greenhouse gases.
 Updates the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard to ensure that by 2030 at least 60 percent of California’s electricity is renewable.
 Requires the Energy Commission, CPUC and CARB to use programs under existing laws to achieve 100 percent clean electricity and issue a joint policy report on SB 100 by 2021 and every four years thereafter.

Senate Bill 350
Senate Bill 350 (SB 350), signed October 7, 2015, is the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. SB 350 is the implementation of some of the goals of Executive Order B-30-15. The objectives of SB 350 are (SB-350):

1. To increase from 33 percent to 50 percent, the procurement of our electricity from renewable sources.

2. To double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses of retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation.

Regional Regulations
There are no regional regulations that relate to energy and this Project.

Local Regulations
City of Riverside 2025 General Plan
The City of Riverside 2025 General Plan contains objectives and policies that are considered applicable to the proposed Project, as identified below (GP 2025, pp. A-35; OS-54 – OS-55; PF-28):

Section 5.4 City of Riverside
Energy Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.4-10
Air Quality Element
Objective AQ-5 Increase energy efficiency and conservation in an effort to reduce air pollution. policies that are considered applicable to the proposed Project, as identified below:

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 resources such as wind, solar, water, landfill gas, and geothermal sources.

Policy AQ-5.6 Support the use of automated equipment for conditioned facilities to control heating and air conditioning.

Policy AQ-5.7 Require residential building construction to meet or exceed energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.

Open Space & Conservation Element
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-8.10 Support the use of public transportation, bicycling and other alternative transportation modes in order to reduce the consumption of non-renewable energy supplies.

Policy OS-8.12 Require bicycle parking in new non-residential 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.

City of Riverside Section 5.4
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Energy

5.4-11
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.

City of Riverside 2025 General Plan EIR
The are no applicable mitigation measures from the Riverside 2025 General Plan EIR that pertain to energy.

City of Riverside Phase I General Plan Update
There are no objectives or policies considered applicable to the proposed Project.

City of Riverside Phase I General Plan Update EIR
The are no applicable mitigation measures from the GPUI EIR that pertain to energy.

City of Riverside Restorative Growthprint
The Riverside Restorative Growthprint, adopted January 2016, consists of the City’s Economic Prosperity Action Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP), which work in conjunction to spur entrepreneurship and smart growth while advancing the City’s GHG emission reduction goals through the year 2035 (RRG). The CAP prioritizes the implementation of policies that enable the City to fulfill the requirements of State initiatives, Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375. The CAP includes a baseline GHG inventory for local government operations and for the community as a whole and establishes emission reduction targets consistent with State law. Through stakeholder engagement and cost-benefit analysis, the CAP resulted in strategies, measures, and actions for reducing emissions that align with the City’s planning priorities and its vision of a future economy based on clean, green businesses and business practices.

Envision Riverside 2025, City of Riverside Strategic Plan The City’s 2025 Strategic Plan, known as Envision Riverside, identifies a clear vision for the future of Riverside’s Economy, Community and Environment. It is comprised of the City Council’s strategic policies and operational workplan to advance the City’s potential. One of the six priorities of Envision Riverside is Environmental Stewardship, with one of the major themes being Sustainability and Resiliency. Environmental Stewardship goals include: rapidly decreasing Riversides’ carbon footprint by acting urgently to reach a zero carbon electric grid with the goal of reaching 100 percent zero cardon electricity production by 2040 with continuing to ensure safe, reliable, and affordable energy for all residents; and implementing the requisite measures to achieve citywide carbon neutrality no later than 2040.

City of Riverside Municipal Code
The following sections of the City’s Municipal Code are applicable and pertain to energy.

Chapter 16.07 Green Code. This chapter adopts the California Green Building Code or “Green Code” standards as the City’s standards.

Chapter 16.13 Energy Code. This chapter adopts the California Energy Code, 2022 Edition, Part 6 of Title 24 standards as the City’s standards.

Section 5.4 City of Riverside
Energy Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.4-12
Chapter 16.26 Electrification of New Buildings. This chapter sets forth the City’s standards for the electrification of newly constructed buildings. New building permits filed after January 6, 2023 for buildings three stories or less require electrification and buildings four or more stories are subject to this requirement in January 2026.

5.4.3 Comments Received in Response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
No comments were received regarding energy resources in response to the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP).

5.4.4 Thresholds of Significance
The City of Riverside has not established local CEQA significance thresholds and instead, defers to the thresholds of significance identified in Appendix G (“Environmental Checklist”) to the State CEQA Guidelines.

As identified in the Initial Study (Appendix A), prepared for this Project, implementation of the proposed Project will have potentially significant impacts in the following areas and these topics are addressed in this DEIR:
 Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; and  Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

5.4.5 Project Design Features
The proposed Project will be designed and constructed to meet all applicable standards under CALGreen, Title 24, and Municipal Code 16.26 (Electrification of New Buildings), as described in Section

5.4.2, above. In particular, the Project will include the following design features:
 Rooftop and carport solar panels, consistent with the 2022 CALGreen code;  Residential appliances installed by the developer will be Energy Star-rated; and  Waste reduction program.

Where possible, these features have been quantified in the Project’s energy demand estimates, as described in Section 5.4.7, below.

5.4.6 Methodology
The estimation of energy impacts is based on the greenhouse gas emissions modeling prepared for the Project by Albert A. Webb Associates. The Greenhouse Gas Modeling Outputs are included as Appendix B. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEModTM) version 2022.1 program was used to quantify project-related emissions and the output includes annual building electricity and natural gas consumption. Because the CalEEMod program does not display the amount and fuel type for mobile sources, additional calculations were conducted and included in the Energy Calculation Tables (WEBBB) found in Appendix B of this Draft EIR are summarized herein.

City of Riverside Section 5.4
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Energy

5.4-13

5.4.7 Environmental Impacts
Threshold: 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 analysis in this section addresses each of the six potential energy impacts identified in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines and utilizes the assumptions from the Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis (WEBB-A found in Appendix B of this Draft EIR) for this Project evaluated in Sections 5.2 Air Quality and

5.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions of this Draft EIR. Because the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) program used in WEBB-A does not display the amount and fuel type for constructionrelated sources, additional calculations were conducted in the Energy Consumption Calculations (WEBB-B found in Appendix B of this Draft EIR) and are summarized below.

State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F provides for assessing potential impacts that a project could have on energy supplies, focusing on the goal of conserving energy by ensuring that projects use energy wisely and efficiently. Pursuant to impact possibilities listed in State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, an impact with regard to energy consumption and conservation will occur if implementation of the proposed Project will:
 Result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Impacts may include:

1. The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal;

2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity;

3. The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy;

4. The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards;

5. The effects of the project on energy resources;

6. The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.

The analysis below addresses each of the six potential energy impacts identified in the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F.

1. The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal.

Construction
Project construction would require the use of construction equipment for demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and painting (architectural coating) activities, as well as construction workers and vendors traveling to and from the Project site (WEBB-A, pp.3- 4). Construction equipment requires diesel as the fuel source (see Table 5.4-C, Construction Energy Use, below).

Fuel consumption from on-site heavy-duty construction equipment was calculated based on the equipment mix and usage factors provided in the CalEEMod construction output files as part of WEBB-A. The total horsepower was then multiplied by fuel usage estimates per horsepower-hour included in Table A9-3-E of SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993, p. A9-6).

Section 5.4 City of Riverside
Energy Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.4-14
Fuel consumption from construction worker and vendor/delivery trucks was calculated using trip rates consistent with the proposed development (specifically the construction of dwelling units and nonresidential square footage) and distances provided in the CalEEMod construction output files (WEBB-A, p. 4). Total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was then calculated as provided in the CalEEMod output files (see WEBB-A) and divided by the corresponding county-specific miles per gallon factor using the 2021 version of CARB’s EMission FACtor (EMFAC) model. Consistent with CalEEMod, construction worker trips were assumed to include 100 percent gasoline powered vehicles.

Construction vendor trucks were assumed to be medium-duty and heavy-duty diesel trucks (WEBBB, Table 1 and 2).

As shown below in Table 5.4-C, a total of 102,142 gallons of diesel fuel, and 132,601 gallons of gasoline is estimated to be consumed during Project site construction.

Construction Energy Use
Fuel Fuel Consumption (Gallons)
Diesel
On-Road Construction Trips1 44,105
Off-Road Construction Equipment2 58,037
Diesel Total 102,142
Gasoline
On-Road Construction Trips1 132,601
Off-Road Construction Equipment3 --
Gasoline Total 132,601
Source: WEBB-B, Table 1
Notes:

1. On-road mobile source fuel use based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from CalEEMod for construction in 2024 and fleet-average fuel consumption in gallons per mile from EMFAC2021 web based data for Riverside County portion of Basin. See Table 2 for calculation details.

2. Off-road mobile source fuel usage based on a fuel usage rate of 0.05 gallons of diesel per horsepower (HP)- hour, based on SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9‐3E.

3. All emissions from off-road construction equipment were assumed to be diesel.

The annual fuel usage for on-road construction trips can be broken down more specifically as follows: 132,601 gallons of gasoline for worker trips (as shown above, under “On-Road Construction Trips”) and 36,833 gallons of diesel for vendor trips. The annual fuel usage for hauling trips associated with the Project is 7,272 of diesel (WEBB-B, Table 2).

Fuel energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. Construction equipment is also required to comply with regulations limiting idling to five minutes or less (CCR 13).

Furthermore, there are no unusual Project site characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in City of Riverside Section 5.4
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Energy

5.4-15
other parts of the State. For comparison, the State of California consumed approximately 13.9 billion gallons of gasoline (CDTFA Gas) and approximately 3.1 billion gallons of diesel fuel (CDTFA Diesel) in 2022, which is the most recent published data. Thus, the fuel usage during Project construction would account for a negligible percent of the existing gasoline and diesel fuel related energy consumption in the State of California. Furthermore, it is expected that construction-related fuel consumption associated with the Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region.

Operation
The Project will promote building energy efficiency through compliance with energy efficiency standards (Title 24 and CALGreen, as discussed under Section 5.4.2). The Project also reduces vehicle fuel usage due to compliance with regulatory programs that reduce VMT. AB 1493 ("the Pavley Standard") requires reduction in GHG emissions from non-commercial passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks of model year 2009 and thereafter. Executive Order S-01-07 went into effect in 2010 and required a reduction in the carbon intensity of transportation fuels used in California that will decrease GHG emissions by reducing the full fuel-cycle and the carbon intensity of the transportation fuel pool in California. The Advanced Clean Cars I and II program, first introduced in 2012, combines the control of smog, soot causing pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2035.

For operational activities, annual electricity and natural gas consumption were calculated using demand factors provided in the CalEEMod output as part of the Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis completed for this Project based on the 2019 Title 24 standards (WEBB-A). The Project site’s electrical consumption was estimated to be approximately 3,741,155 kWh of electricity per year; this is the sum of the building electricity (3,595,054 kWh/year) and electricity related to the Project’s water consumption (146,101 kWh/year). Additionally, the Project’s natural gas consumption was estimated to be approximately 370,677 kilo-British thermal units (kBTUs) per year for the proposed retail land uses (WEBB-B, Table 3).

As previously stated in Section 5.4.2, building electrification is required for the Project pursuant to the City municipal code (Chapter 16.26). Accordingly, CalEEMod mitigation measure E-15, which requires all electric development was incorporated as part of Project design. However, CalEEMod only quantifies reductions from the residential land use for this measure. Therefore, the natural gas emissions are overstated and provide a conservative analysis. Additionally, as stated in Section

5.4.5, the Project design also includes energy star-rated appliances in the residential buildings.

Therefore, the CalEEMod mitigation measure E-2 was incorporated as part of Project design for installation of energy star-rated, refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, and ceiling fans.

Finally, the Project will incorporate solar panels on rooftops and/or carports consistent with the 2022 California Green Building Code. The energy production from the Project’s solar panels were not quantified, providing a more conservative estimate of energy-related emissions. (WEBB-A, p. 10).

In comparison to the Project, RPU produced approximately 2.1 billion kWh of electricity in 2021 (CEC 2021a) and SCG produced approximately 5.1 billion therms of natural gas in 2021 (CEC 2021b). At full build-out, the Project site’s electricity demand would be a negligible amount of the existing electricity and the natural gas demand would be a negligible percent of the existing natural gas use in SCG’s service area.

Section 5.4 City of Riverside
Energy Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.4-16
Energy impacts associated with transportation during operation were also assessed using the traffic data contained in (WEBB-A). Based on the annual VMT, gasoline and diesel consumption rates were calculated using the Riverside County-specific miles per gallon in EMFAC2021. A total of 94,587 gallons of diesel fuel, and 518,772 gallons of gasoline is estimated to be consumed each year from the Project operation (WEBB-B, Table 3). As stated above, the State of California consumed approximately 13.9 billion gallons of gasoline (CDTFA Gas) and 3.1 billion gallons of diesel fuel (CDTFA Diesel) in 2022. Thus, the annual fuel usage during Project operation would account for a negligible percent of the existing diesel fuel and gasoline related energy consumption in California.

To summarize, regulations previously identified related to energy conservation and fuel efficiency include, but are not limited to, Title 24 building energy efficiency standards and CALGreen, Pavley standards, and the Advanced Clean Cars Program. Collectively, compliance with regulatory programs would ensure that the Project would not result in the inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful consumption of energy with regards to the Project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies.

2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity.

As addressed above, the Project’s electricity consumption was minimal in comparison to RPU’s supply. The Project will comply with applicable state, RPU, and GP goals and policies that require energy conservation and increase reliance on renewable energy to reduce electricity demand within the Project site. As discussed above, RPU’s total electricity consumption was approximately 2,114 million kilowatt-hours in 2021 as reflected in Table 5.4-A above. The Project demand would be a negligible amount of RPU’s existing electricity use. As such, there will be adequate capacity to serve the proposed Project.

As addressed above, the Project’s natural gas consumption was estimated to be approximately 370,677 kBTUs per year (or 3,708 therms per year). The Project will comply with applicable California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), state, SCG, and GP goals and policies that require energy conservation to reduce natural gas demand within the Project area. As discussed above, the Project demand would be a negligible percent of SCG’s existing natural gas use. As the proposed Project’s overall consumption of natural gas use is comparatively insignificant to existing SCG-wide use and as SCG continuously expands its network, as needed, to meet the need in Southern California, there will be adequate capacity to serve the proposed Project. Further, towards this same end, it should also be noted that SCG projects total gas demand to decline at an annual rate of 0.74 percent from 2018 to 2035 as a result of modest economic growth, CPUC-mandated energy efficiency standards and programs, tighter standards created by revised Title 24 Codes and Standards, renewable electricity goals, decline in commercial and industrial demand, and conservation savings linked to Advanced Metering Infrastructure (CGEU 2018, p. 68). Lastly, the Project is subject to the City’s electrification requirements for new buildings which further avoids the natural gas estimates calculated for the Project; therefore, natural gas consumption from the Project’s retail component was overestimated and provides a more conservative analysis. The Project would therefore not have a significant effect on local and regional energy supplies.

City of Riverside Section 5.4
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Energy

5.4-17

3. The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.

As described above, RPU produced approximately 2,114 million kWh in 2021 as reflected in Table 5.4-A above, and the Project is expected to have a negligible impact to RPU’s total electricity usage.

Therefore, it can be stated that the Project will not have a substantial effect on energy supplies.

The Project will meet Title 24 building energy efficiency standards and CALGreen. With regard to peak hour demands, purveyors of energy resources, including RPU, have established long standing energy conservation programs to encourage consumers to adopt energy conservation habits and reduce energy consumption during peak demand periods. The proposed Project supports these efforts through GP policies identified above that will not only reduce energy consumption during peak hour demands, but also during the base period. To this end, the Project will not substantially affect peak and base period demands for electricity or other forms of energy, such as natural gas.

4. The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards.

The proposed Project would be required to comply with City, state and federal energy conservation measures related to construction and operations. Many of the regulations regarding energy efficiency are focused on increasing building efficiency and renewable energy generation, promoting sustainability through energy conservation measures, as well as reducing water consumption and VMT. As described above, the proposed Project will meet and/or exceed these regulatory requirements.

The California Energy Code standards include provisions applicable to all buildings, residential and non-residential, which are mandatory requirements for efficiency and design. The provisions would be accomplished through implementation of energy reduction measures, such as energy efficient lighting and appliances. The Project would comply fully with existing energy standards.

In addition, the Project will be consistent with applicable goals and polices within the GP. Through implementation of energy conservation measures and sustainable practices, the Project will not use large amounts of energy in a manner that is wasteful or otherwise inconsistent with adopted plans or policies.

5. The effects of the project on energy resources.

The effects of the Project on energy supplies and resources from a capacity standpoint are described above in the preceding analysis. In regard to the effects of the Project on energy resources, the Project is required to ensure that the Project does not result in the inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful consumption of energy. Notable regulatory measures that are discussed above include compliance with California Title 24 and CALGreen Standards, RPS, Pavley standards and the Advanced Clean Cars Program.

6. The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.

As stated above, energy impacts associated with transportation during construction and operation of the Project would not result in the inefficient, unnecessary, or wasteful consumption of energy through adherence to existing regulations and GP policies and implementation of design features.

Regarding efficient transportation alternatives, the Project will provide alternative transportation Section 5.4 City of Riverside
Energy Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.4-18
choices because Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) operates two bus routes that travel along Streeter Avenue and Arlington Avenue, Routes 15 and 12. Two existing bus stops are provided along the Project frontage. Additionally, the Project will comply with CALGreen requirements which require bike racks and electric vehicle (EV) capable parking spaces and electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS), in addition to the specific design features incorporated in the Project. Implementation of these various measures decreases reliance on fossil fuels. For the reasons described above, the Project promotes efficient alternative transportation choices.

In conclusion, for the reasons outlined above, the proposed Project will not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
As stated in Section 5.4.2, above, the City of Riverside’s General Plan Air Quality Element identifies objectives and policies that indirectly increase energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption in the City. Additionally, the City’s Riverside Restorative Growthprint includes a CAP, which advances the City’s GHG emission reduction goals through the year 2035. CAP Table B.3-2, 2020 and 2035 Reductions from Local Measures, lists local GHG reduction measures that increase energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption.

As stated in Section 5.5 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions of this Draft EIR, the Project complies with the regulations and GHG reduction goals, policies, actions, and strategies outlined in the City’s CAP. As previously stated, the proposed Project will comply with Title 24 standards for insulation, glazing, lighting, shading, photovoltaic systems on residential homes, and water and space-heating systems in all new construction. The Project will also comply with the CALGreen Code which implements sustainable construction practices that reduce negative impacts on the environment through planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. Moreover, the service providers (RPU and SCG) are subject to renewable energy requirements under the RPS. Through the use of modern energy-efficient construction materials and practices, compliance with current Title 24 standards, the proposed Project will be consistent with the state’s energy conservation standards.

Thus, the proposed Project would not conflict with an adopted energy conservation plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

5.4.8 Recommended Mitigation Measures
An EIR is required to describe feasible mitigation measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.4). There are no mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to energy resources since impacts are less than significant.

5.4.9 Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures are Implemented
There are no mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to energy resources.

City of Riverside Section 5.5
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.5-1

5.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The focus of this section is to analyze potential impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs).

The following discussion addresses the potential for adverse impacts that could result from the construction and operation as a result of the Project. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 7.0 – Other CEQA Topics of this Draft EIR.

5.5.1 Setting
Naturally occurring gases dispersed in the atmosphere determine the Earth’s climate by trapping infrared radiation (heat). This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect and without it, the Earth would be about -2 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Overwhelming evidence shows that human activities are increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, trapping more heat, and changing the global climate. The most significant contributor is the burning of fossil fuels for transportation, electricity generation, and other purposes, which introduces large amounts of carbon dioxide and other GHGs into the atmosphere. Collectively, these gases intensify the natural greenhouse effect, causing global average surface and lower atmospheric temperatures to rise, a phenomenon known as global climate change. (WRCOG CAP, p. 1-4). The most common GHG is carbon dioxide (CO2), which constitutes approximately 83 percent of all GHG emissions in California (CARB 2018).

Greenhouse Gases
Gases responsible for global climate change in the Basin and their relative contribution to the overall warming effect are CO2 (55 percent), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) (24 percent), methane (CH4) (15 percent), and nitrous oxide (N2O) (6 percent). It is widely accepted that continued increases in GHG will contribute to global climate change although there is uncertainty concerning the magnitude and timing of future emissions and the resultant warming trend. (SCAQMD 2005, p. 1-8). “Stratospheric ozone depletion” refers to the slow destruction of naturally occurring ozone, which lies in the upper atmosphere (called the stratosphere) and which protects Earth from the damaging effects of solar ultraviolet radiation. Certain compounds, including CFCs, halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and other halogenated compounds, accumulate in the lower atmosphere and then gradually migrate into the stratosphere. In the stratosphere, these compounds participate in complex chemical reactions to destroy the upper ozone layer. Destruction of the ozone layer increases the penetration of ultraviolet radiation to the Earth’s surface, a known risk factor that can increase the incidence of skin cancers and cataracts, contribute to crop, and fish damage, and further degrade air quality. (SCAQMD 2005, p. 1-8).

GHG and ozone-depleting gases include, but are not limited to, the following (SCAQMD 2005, pp. 1-8 – 1-9):
 Carbon dioxide – Carbon dioxide results from fossil fuel combustion in stationary and mobile sources. It contributes to the greenhouse effect, but not to stratospheric ozone depletion. In the Basin, approximately 48 percent of carbon dioxide emissions come from Section 5.5 City of Riverside
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.5-2
transportation, residential and utility sources which contribute approximately 13 percent each, 20 percent come from industry, and the remainder comes from a variety of other sources.
 Methane – Atmospheric methane is emitted from both non-biogenic and biogenic sources.

Non-biogenic sources include fossil fuel mining and burning, biomass burning, waste treatment, geologic sources, and leaks in natural gas pipelines. Biogenic sources include wetlands, rice agriculture, livestock, landfills, forest, oceans, and termites. Methane sources can also be divided into anthropogenic and natural. Anthropogenic sources include rice agriculture, livestock, landfills, waste treatment, some biomass burning, and fossil fuel combustion. Natural sources are wetlands, oceans, forests, fire, termites, and geological sources. Anthropogenic sources currently account for more than 60 percent of the total global emissions. It is a greenhouse gas and traps heat 40–70 times more effectively than carbon dioxide. In the Basin, more than 50 percent of human-induced methane emissions come from natural gas pipelines, while landfills contribute 24 percent. Methane emissions from landfills are reduced by SCAQMD Rule 1150.1 – Control of Gaseous Emissions from Active Landfills. Methane emissions from petroleum sources are reduced by a number of rules in SCAQMD Regulation XI that control fugitive emissions from petroleum production, refining, and distribution.
 Other regulated greenhouse gases include Nitrous Oxide, Sulfur Hexafluoride, Hydrofluorocarbons, and Perfluorocarbons1 – These gases all possess heat-trapping potentials hundreds to thousands of times more effective than carbon dioxide. Emission sources of nitrous oxide gases include, but are not limited to, waste combustion, wastewater treatment, fossil fuel combustion, and fertilizer production. Because the volume of emissions is small, the net effect of nitrous oxide emissions relative to carbon dioxide or methane is relatively small. Sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbon, and perfluorocarbon emissions occur at even lower rates.
 Chlorofluorocarbons – Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are emitted from blowing agents used in producing foam insulation. They are also used in air conditioners and refrigerators and as solvents to clean electronic microcircuits. CFCs are primary contributors to stratospheric ozone depletion and to global warming. Sixty-three percent of CFC emissions in the South Coast Air Basin come from the industrial sector. Federal regulations require service practices that maximize recycling of ozone-depleting compounds (both CFCs, hydrochlorofluorocarbons and their blends) during the servicing and disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment. SCAQMD Rule 1415 – Reduction of Refrigerant Emissions from Stationary Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Systems requires CFC refrigerants to be reclaimed or recycled from stationary refrigeration and air conditioning systems. SCAQMD Rule 1405 – Control of Ethylene Oxide and Chlorofluorocarbon Emissions from Sterilization or Fumigant Processes requires recovery of reclamation of CFCs at certain commercial facilities and eliminates the use of some CFCs in the sterilization processes. Some CFCs are classified as TACs and regulated by SCAQMD Rule 1401 – New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants and SCAQMD Rule 1402 Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources.
 Halons – These compounds are used in fire extinguishers and behave as both ozonedepleting and GHG. Halon production ended in the United States in 1993. SCAQMD Rule 1418 – Halon Emissions from Fire Extinguishing Equipment requires the recovery and

1. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases City of Riverside Section 5.5
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.5-3
recycling of halons used in fire extinguishing systems and prohibits the sale of halon in small fire extinguishers.
 Hydro-chlorofluorocarbons – HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The hydrogen component makes HCFCs more chemically reactive than CFCs, allowing them to break down more quickly in the atmosphere. These compounds deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, but to a much lesser extent than CFCs. HCFCs are regulated under the same SCAQMD rules as CFCs.
 1,1,1,-trichloroethane (TCA) – TCA (methyl chloroform) is a solvent and cleaning agent commonly used by manufacturers. It is less destructive on the environment than CFCs or HCFCs, but its continued use will contribute to global warming and ozone depletion. 1,1,1- trichloroethane (TCA) is a synthetic chemical that does not occur naturally in the environment. No TCA is supposed to be manufactured for domestic use in the United States after January 1, 2002 because it affects the ozone layer. TCA had many industrial and household uses, including use as a solvent to dissolve other substances, such as glues and paints; to remove oil or grease from manufactured metal parts; and as an ingredient of household products such as spot cleaners, glues, and aerosol sprays. SCAQMD regulates this compound as a toxic air contaminant under Rules 1401 and 1402.

Global Warming Potentials
Individual GHGs have varying global warming potential and atmospheric lifetimes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed the Global Warming Potential (GWP) concept to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP of individual GHGs is determined through a comparison with the GWP of CO2. For example, CO2 has a GWP of one (since we are using CO2 to compare other gases), and CH4 has a GWP of 28 (over a 100-year time period), meaning that on a molecule by molecule basis, CH4 has 28 times the global warming potential of CO2 over a 100-year time period (IPCC 2013, pp. 710-714). CO2-equivalents (CO2E) are the emissions of GHG multiplied by the GWP. The CalEEMod program calculates the CO2E based on the GWPs reported in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC 2013). Table 5.5-A, Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes shows the GWP and atmospheric lifetimes of various GHGs with relatively long atmospheric lifetimes from the IPCC 2013 report.

Table 5.5-A, Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes Gas Atmospheric Lifetime Global Warming Potential
(100 Year Time Horizon)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) -- 1
Methane (CH4) 12.4 28-34
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 121 265-298
Hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs) HFC-134a 13.4 1,300-1,550
Perfluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 6,630-7,350
Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFC) CFC-11 45 4,660-5,350
Source: IPCC 2013, Table 8.7
Section 5.5 City of Riverside
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.5-4
Effects of Climate Change
Agriculture
Global climate change can cause drought, higher temperatures, saltwater contamination through rising sea levels, flooding, and increased risk of pests. Because California feeds not only its own residents, but the entire U.S. and other countries as well, production declines could lead to food shortages and higher prices. (OAG 2023)
Forest and Biodiversity
Forest and rangelands cover over 80% of California’s 100 million acres. Climate change will affect tree survival and growth, reducing these lands’ productivity and changing their habitats. In addition, climate change makes forests more vulnerable to fires by increasing temperatures and making forests and brush drier. Today’s fire season in the western United States starts earlier, lasts longer, and is more intense than in the last several decades. Wildfire occurrence statewide could increase several fold by the end of the century, increasing fire suppression and emergency response costs and damage to property. (OAG 2023)
California is one of the most biologically diverse regions of the world, with the highest number of unique plant and animal species of all 50 states and the greatest number of endangered species. Climate change will adversely affect plant and wildlife habitats and the ability of the State’s varied ecosystems to support clean water, wildlife, fish, timber and other goods and services. (OAG 2023) Public Health
Californians already experience the worst air quality in the nation. Hotter temperatures lead to more smog, which can damage lungs, and increases childhood asthma, respiratory and heart disease, and death. Certain segments of the population are at greater risk, including the elderly, infants, persons with chronic heart or lung disease, people who cannot afford air conditioning, and those who work outdoors.

As temperatures rise, the number of days of extreme heat events also will rise, causing increases in the risk of injury or death from dehydration, heatstroke, heart attack and respiratory problems. (OAG 2023) Sea Level Rise
The sea level along California’s coasts has risen nearly eight inches in the past century and is projected to rise by as much as 20 to 55 inches by the end of the century. A 55-inch sea level rise could put nearly half a million people at risk of flooding by 2100, and threaten property and infrastructure, including roadways, buildings, hazardous waste sites, power plants, and parks and tourist destinations. (OAG 2023)
As sea levels rise, saltwater contamination of the State’s delta and levee systems will increase. Saltwater contamination of the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta will threaten wildlife and the source of drinking water for 20 million Californians. Farmland in low areas may also be harmed by salt-contaminated water. (OAG 2023)
Water Resources
The Sierra Nevada snowpack functions as the most important natural reservoir of water in California.

Under current conditions, the snowpack is created in fall and winter and slowly releases about 15 million acre-feet of water in the spring and summer, when California needs it most. California’s dams and water storage facilities are built to handle the snow melt as it happened in the past. Higher temperatures are now causing the snowpack to melt earlier and all at once. Earlier and larger releases of water could overwhelm California’s water storage facilities, creating risk of floods and water shortages. (OAG 2023) City of Riverside Section 5.5
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.5-5

5.5.2 Related Regulations
International Regulations
International Treaties and Other Developments
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on December 11, 1997 and entered into force on February 16, 2005. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it commits its Parties (a number of industrialized countries; see page 20 of UN 1997 for a list of all Parties to the Kyoto Protocol) by setting internationally binding GHG emission reduction targets (UN Kyoto). The targets amount to an average of five percent reduction against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012 (UN 1997, p. 3). The major distinction between the Protocol and the Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize GHG emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so (UN 1997, p. 4).

Recognizing that developed countries are principally responsible for the current high levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities." (UN 1997, p. 9).

Negotiations after Kyoto have continued in an attempt to address the period after the first "commitment period" of the Kyoto Protocol, concluded at the end of 2012 (UN 1997, p. 3). In 2011, parties to the protocol agreed in principle to negotiate a new comprehensive and legally binding climate agreement by 2015 and to enter it into force for all parties starting from 2020. Negotiations took place under the Ad Hoc Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (UN ADP). Culminating in the adoption of the Paris Agreement by the Conference of the Parties on December 12, 2015 (UN 2015, p. 1 and 25). The Paris Agreement seeks to accelerate and intensify the actions and investment needed for a sustainable low carbon future. Its central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius. (UN 2015, p. 3).

In accordance with Article 21, paragraph 1, of the Paris Agreement, the Agreement shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date on which at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55 percent of the total global greenhouse gas emissions have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Depositary (the Secretary-General of the United Nations) (UN 2015, pp. 23-24). The Paris Agreement entered into force on November 4, 2016 (UN Paris). The United States ratified the Paris agreement on September 3, 2016 (UN 2019). In accordance with its article 20, the Agreement was open for signature at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from April 22, 2016 until April 21, 2017 by States and regional economic integration organizations that are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN 2015, p. 22). On June 1, 2017, President Donald Trump announced that he would withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement (White House 2017). However, with President Biden’s day one executive order, the United States rejoined the Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021. (EO 14008).

State-wide and local efforts (discussed below) continue to promote and enforce regulations to reduce GHG emissions and meet the goals.

Federal Regulations
Previously the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) had not regulated GHGs under the Clean Air Act (CAA) because it asserted that the Act did not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change and that such regulation would be unwise without an Section 5.5 City of Riverside
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

5.5-6
unequivocally established causal link between GHGs and the increase in global surface air temperatures.

In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. (127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007)) (MASS), however, the U.S. Supreme Court held that GHGs are pollutants under the CAA and directed the USEPA to decide whether the gases endangered public health or welfare. On December 7, 2009, the USEPA issued an Endangerment Finding under Section 202(a) of the CAA, opening the door to federal regulation of GHGs.

The Endangerment Finding notes that GHGs threaten public health and welfare and are subject to regulation under the CAA. To date, the USEPA has not promulgated major regulations on GHG emissions, but it has begun to develop them.

The USEPA had also not moved aggressively to regulate GHGs because it expected Congress to make progress on GHG legislation, primarily from the standpoint of a cap-and-trade system. However, proposals circulated in both the House of Representative and Senate have been controversial and it may be some time before Congress adopts major climate change legislation. The USEPA’s Endangerment Finding paves the way for federal regulation of GHGs with or without Congress. To date, Congress, under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (HR 2764), has established mandatory GHG reporting requirements for some emitters of GHGs. On September 22, 2009, the USEPA issued the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. The rule requires annual reporting to the USEPA of GHG emissions from large sources and suppliers of GHGs, including facilities that emit 25,000 MT or more a year of GHGs.

Regarding vehicle emission standards, in 2019, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and USEPA amended certain existing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (café) and greenhouse gas emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and established new standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026. The rule also revoked California’s ability to set its own, higher fuel efficiency standards, which are granted by waiver. California has filed two lawsuits against the USEPA over proposed amendments and repeal of the waiver. In May 2021, NHTFSA proposed to repeal the amended standards, but the decision was not finalized. (NHFTSA 2021) In March 2022, EPAs most recent decision, they rescinded the action to revoke California’s ability to set its own higher fuel efficiency standards. This restored California’s authority to implement its own GHG emissions standards. (NHTSA 2022)
Multi-State/Regional Area Regulations
California is working closely with the other states and provinces to design a regional GHG reduction program that includes a cap-and-trade approach. CARB's Cap-and-Trade Program, is intended to link California and the other member states and provinces. As of January 1, 2014, California's Cap-andTrade Program is linked to Quebec's pursuant to the Agreement Between the California Air Resources Board and the Government du Québec Concerning the Harmonization and Integration of Cap-and-Trade Programs Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, in accordance with the direction in CARB’s Resolution 13-7 (CARB 2013, p. 9). As of January 1, 2018, California’s and Québec’s Cap-and-Trade Programs will also be linked with Ontario’s Cap-and-Trade Program (CARB 2017a), all three jurisdictions harmonizing their respective programs per their joint agreement (CARB 2017b).

State Regulations
California has adopted various administrative initiatives and also enacted a variety of legislation relating to climate change, much of which sets aggressive goals for GHG emissions reductions within the state.

However, none of this legislation provides definitive direction regarding the treatment of climate change in environmental review documents prepared under CEQA. In particular, the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines do not require or suggest specific methodologies for performing an assessment or thresholds City of Riverside Section 5.5
Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.5-7
of significance, and do not specify GHG reduction mitigation measures. Instead, the CEQA amendments continue to rely on lead agencies to choose methodologies and make significance determinations based on substantial evidence, as discussed in further detail below (CNRA 2009a). In addition, no state agency has promulgated binding regulations for analyzing GHG emissions, determining their significance, or mitigating any significant effects in CEQA documents. Thus, lead agencies exercise their discretion determining how to analyze GHGs.

The discussion below provides a brief overview of the CARB and Office of Planning and Research (OPR) documents and of the primary legislation that relates to climate change that may affect the emissions associated with the proposed Project. It begins with an overview of the primary regulatory acts that have driven GHG regulation and analysis in California.

Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) was signed into law in September 2006 after considerable study and expert testimony before the legislature. The law instructs CARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verifying of statewide GHG emissions. The Act directed CARB to set a GHG emission limit based on 1990 levels to be achieved by 2020. The bill set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner (AB 32). AB 32 was followed by Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) in 2016, which expanded this goal for statewide GHG emissions to be 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (SB 32). AB 1279, signed into law September 2022, requires the state to achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter. The bill also requires California to reduce statewide GHG emissions by 85 percent compared to 1990 levels and directs CARB to work with relevant state agencies to achieve these goals.

In December 2008, CARB adopted a Scoping Plan to achieve the goals of AB 32. The Scoping Plan establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California's GHG emissions for various categories of emissions. CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emission levels would require a reduction of GHG emissions of approximately 28.5 percent to achieve 2020 emissions levels in the absence of new laws and regulations (i.e. business as usual). The Scoping Plan evaluates opportunities for sector-specific reductions, integrates all CARB and Climate Action Team early actions and additional GHG reduction measures by both entities, identifies additional measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlines the role of a Cap-and-Trade Program. The key elements of the Scoping Plan include: (CARB 2008, pp. ES-3 – ES-4)
 Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards,
 Achieving a statewide renewable energy mix of 33 percent,  Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85 percent of California's GHG emissions,
 Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets,  Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies including California's clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard,
Section 5.5 City of Riverside
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Arlington Mixed Use Development Draft EIR

Riverside City CouncilSeptember 17, 2024

Riverside City Council
September 17, 2024