Final Environmental Impact Report — Riverside City Council, September 17, 2024

Final 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
Final Environmental Impact Report
Arlington Mixed Use Development
Project
Riverside, California
SCH No. 2023060428
Lead Agency:

City of Riverside
3737 Main Street, Suite 400
Riverside, CA 92501
Contact: Brian Norton
(951) 826-2308
Prepared By:

ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
Contact: Melissa Perez
(951) 686-1070
September 2024
City of Riverside Table of Contents
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR
FEIR i
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Information Added Following Distribution of the Draft EIR ..........................................................1

1.2 Relationship to the Draft EIR......................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Public Review Summary ............................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Organization and Scope of the Final EIR...................................................................................... 2

2.0 Responses to Comments ...................................................................................................................2-1

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

2.2 List of Commenters....................................................................................................................2-1

2.3 Comments and Responses........................................................................................................2-1

2.4 Comment Letter A – Krystal Hacker ..........................................................................................2-3

2.5 Comment Letter B – Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.................................................2-12

2.6 Comment Letter C – Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission ..................................2-15

2.7 Comment Letter D – Department of Toxic Substance Control ...............................................2-18

2.8 Comment Letter E – Paula Horychuk ......................................................................................2-30

3.0 Draft EIR Revisions/Errata ..................................................................................................................3-1

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

4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).....................................................................4-1

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

4.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Responsibilities................................................................................4-1 City of Riverside Section 1.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Introduction FEIR 1-1

1.0 Introduction
The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR or FEIR) for the proposed Arlington Mixed Use Development (Project), as required pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines) Sections 15089 and 15132, includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, the comments received on the Draft EIR, and the responses of the lead agency, which is the City of Riverside (City) for this Project, to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is also included to ensure compliance during Project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097).

1.1 Information Added Following Distribution of the Draft EIR The information added following distribution of the Draft EIR does not constitute “significant new information” pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 because this information does not change the Draft EIR analysis and conclusions regarding Project impacts and/or mitigation measures such that new or more severe environmental impacts result from the Project. The information is added as a result of comments received from commenting parties, changes in the existing conditions at the site, revised public policies since the Draft EIR was written, and/or minor corrections or clarifications.

The additional information merely “clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications” to the Draft EIR, as is permitted by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b).

1.2 Relationship to the Draft EIR
Minor changes that clarify or correct minor inaccuracies in the Draft EIR appear as revised pages in the EIR Errata/Draft EIR Revisions section which follows herein. The Draft EIR considered by the City, as lead agency, has been edited to reflect corrections and responses to comments raised.

1.3 Public Review Summary
The EIR process for this Project consisted of three parts: the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Draft EIR, and Final EIR.

Initial Study/Notice of Preparation
The City distributed the NOP on February 15, 2023 to agencies, local governments, and interested parties from the general public. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, recipients of the NOP were requested to provide responses within 30 days upon receipt. The NOP and comments received are included in Appendix A to the Draft EIR.

Draft EIR
The City circulated the Draft EIR for the Project for a 45-day public review period from February 6, 2024 through March 22, 2024 to Responsible Agencies and interested parties for review and comment.

Notices of Completion and Availability of the Draft EIR were circulated to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other interested parties (including adjacent property owners) on February 6, 2024.

Section 1.0 City of Riverside
Introduction Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 1-2
A general public Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was also provided by publication in The Press Enterprise daily circulation newspaper on February 6, 2024. As required by Public Resources Code Section 21092.3, a copy of the public notice was posted with the Riverside County Clerk on February 6, 2024. Additionally, the NOA and Draft EIR were posted on the City’s website on February 6, 2024 and made available through March 22, 2024.

As provided in the public notice and in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 21091(d), the City accepted written comments through March 22, 2024.

Final EIR
This Final EIR presents the environmental information and analyses that have been prepared for the proposed Project, including comments received addressing the adequacy of the Draft EIR and responses to those comments. As required by CEQA, this document responds to all written comments received during the 45-day comment period. The responses to comments in conjunction with the Draft EIR, constitute the Final EIR for the proposed Project.

A copy of the comment letters submitted in response to the Draft EIR is presented in Section 2.0 - Responses to Comments of this document. These comments were reviewed, and revisions were incorporated into the Draft EIR where appropriate. Requirements for the preparation and disposition of the Response to Comments are provided for in Public Resources Code - Section 21092.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. In addition to the responses to comments, clarifications, corrections, or minor revisions have been made to the Draft EIR and are included Section 3.0 - Errata of this Final EIR. The Final EIR, in combination with the Draft EIR and the MMRP (which is included as Section 4.0 of this Final EIR), will be used by the City of Riverside City Council in its decision-making process for this Project.

1.4 Organization and Scope of the Final EIR
This document is organized as follows:

Section 1.0 – Introduction: Provides an overview of the EIR process to date and the required contents of the Final EIR.

Section 2.0 – Response to Comments: Provides a list of commenters, copies of the written comments on the Draft EIR (coded for reference), and the City’s responses to those comments.

Section 3.0 – Errata: Consists of the revisions to the Draft EIR as a result of response to comments as well as minor edits and clarifications that do not change the intent or content of the analysis or conclusions regarding the level of significance of impacts, nor alter mitigation measures in their effectiveness to reduce impacts.

Section 4.0 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: This section contains a matrix identifying each mitigation measure, timing of the mitigation measure, the responsible party, the action to indicate compliance, and verification of compliance.

City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-1

2.0 Responses to Comments

2.1 Introduction
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the responses to comments presented in this section address specific, relevant comments on environmental issues raised in the comment letters submitted in response to the Draft EIR. All of the comment letters received by the City of Riverside during the public review period for the Draft EIR, along with one comment letter that was received after the public review period, are included in this section. Each comment letter is followed by the City’s responses to each of the individual comments. In accordance with the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City has provided a written response to each commenting public agency no less than 10 days prior to the proposed Final EIR certification date.

2.2 List of Commenters
Table 2.0-A, List of Commenters below, provides a list of the commenters who submitted comments on the Draft EIR. This table identifies the comment letters that were received during the public review period comment period of the Draft EIR. The date of comment letters received after the public review period are identified based on the date of receipt of the comment.

5.2.1 Comments Received During Public Review Period
Comment
Letter Name/Agency Date
Comments Received During Public Review Period
A Krystal Hacker February 28, 2024
B Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians March 4, 2024
C Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission March 6, 2024 D Department of Toxic Substances Control March 19, 2024 E Paula Horychuk March 22, 2024

2.3 Comments and Responses
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 requires that lead agencies evaluate all comments on environmental issues received on the Draft EIR and prepare a written response. The written response must address the environmental issue(s) raised and provide a detailed response. Lead agencies are required to respond to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments. A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 recommends that commenters provide detailed comments that focus on the sufficiency of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 also notes that commenters should provide an explanation and Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-2
evidence supporting their comments. Furthermore, CEQA does not require lead agencies to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commentors. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 also recommends that where the response to comments results in revisions to the Draft EIR, those revisions should be noted as a revision to the Draft EIR or in a separate section of the Final EIR. Any revisions identified in the responses to comments below are summarized in Section 4.0 – Errata of this Final EIR.

Written comments on the Draft EIR are reproduced on the following pages, along with the City’s responses to those comments. To assist in referencing comments and responses, the comment letters are coded using letters (e.g., Comment Letter A) and each issue raised in the comment letter is assigned a number that correlates with the letter (e.g. A-1, A-2, A-3, etc.). Comment-initiated text revisions to the Draft EIR are compiled in their entirety and are demarcated with revision marks in Section 4.0 - Errata, of this Final EIR
City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-3

2.4 Comment Letter A – Krystal Hacker
Comment letter A commences on the next page.

There are no signals at the entrances or exits on Streeter which is going to cause a huge traffic nightmare.

I hope you are the right person to voice these concerns to, and if not please let me know who! Thank you!
Krystal
Stay in-the-know with all things Riverside! Connect with us at RiversideCA.gov/Connect.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Riverside. It was not sent by any City official or staff. Use caution when opening attachments or links.

From: Krystal Hacker <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 4:38 PM
To: Norton, Brian <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Sears
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
I was just wondering if the City has tried to reach out to Discovery Cube museum to see if they would build on the Sears site? I know years ago Discovery Cube was interested in the old Library building. I think a children's museum would ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
I was just wondering if the City has tried to reach out to Discovery Cube museum to see if they would build on the Sears site? I know years ago Discovery Cube was interested in the old Library building. I think a children's museum would be extremely beneficial to our city.

If not, what about a Costco? Has the city tried to contact Costco to see if they could build a Costco or a Costco Business Center (Smaller scale costco) I do live near Sears. I have some concerns about the apartments, I think that there are too many and that the design is too modern looking.

I'm also trying to figure out why they would put in a low income grocery store Aldi's into expensive apartments? Why not something upscale like a Trader Joe's or a Whole Foods? I think it's also weird that Aldi's truck loading is facing Streeter. No one wants to watch a big semi truck be unloaded every day! Why is it not behind the Aldi's facing the apartments?
Comment Letter A
"
"
"
"
"
City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-5
Response to Comment Letter A – Krystal Hacker
Response to Comment A-1:

Comment noted. The purpose of CEQA is to analyze the Project as proposed. The Project is not proposed to be a Costco or a children’s museum by the Applicant. As stated in Section 8.3 – Rationale for Alternative Selection of the Draft EIR, CEQA does require analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project. However, this is not an exhaustive analysis as stated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) which requires that an EIR “…describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” According to this section of the State CEQA Guidelines, “…an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. ” An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The City, as lead agency, is responsible for selecting a range of Project alternatives for examination, and there is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the “rule of reason” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (a)). Among the factors that may be considered when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (f)(1)).”(DEIR, pp. 8-2 – 8-3) Section 8.0 – Alternatives of the Draft EIR provides an analysis of a range of alternatives as defined by CEQA, and their ability to meet the objectives of the Project as outlined which are outlined in Section

3.4.9 – Project Objectives of the Draft EIR. The four alternatives to the Project identified for analysis within the Draft EIR, were chosen based on their potential likelihood to reduce impacts found to be significant and unavoidable by the proposed Project and their potential ability to meet the objectives of the Project identified in Section 8.1 - Project Objectives of the Draft EIR. As further stated, “Section 15126.6(c) further indicates that a lead agency may eliminate an alternative from detailed consideration in an EIR if it fails to meet the basic Project Objectives, is infeasible, or does not avoid significant environmental impacts.” (DEIR, p. 8.0-3)
As stated in Section 8.0 – Alternatives of the Draft EIR, “Other uses considered but rejected for consideration included a Self-Storage Facility. The existing Sears Department Store building is approximately 178,426 square feet in size which is significantly larger than typical self-storage facilities which are approximately 50,000 sf in size. A viable self-storage tenant would require multiple units that have access to the exterior of the building. This would require the addition of numerous exterior doors and cutting openings in the building. However, in doing so, the existing exterior walls of the building would not be of much use for seismic loads imposed on the structure by current code requirements, especially due to removal of the wall for creation of additional openings for storage access. For seismic requirements, the existing exterior walls would need to be reinforced with new walls inside of existing exterior walls and associated vertical elements from these walls would need to be transferred down to the lowest foundation level with new foundations.

To utilize the existing building, it would need to be modified to reinforce and significantly upgrade the ground level building slab in order to accommodate loading parameters required for this type of use which are 2.5 times higher than the currently allowable loading for the existing structure for a one-story Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-6
storage structure. Upgrades would likely require the addition of an entirely new slab. Given that the exterior walls are supported by basement foundations and new supports would be supported on grade, this introduces potential differential settlement issues between the new building supports and existing building wall supports which would not be structurally acceptable. Support in the basement would be needed, foundations would need to be added, and existing foundations would need to be upgraded. If multiple levels of are desired for a storage facility, utilization of the existing structure would be impossible.

In addition to the structural infeasibility, use of the existing Sears Department Store building as a SelfStorage Facility would not be a viable option due to the likely failure to attract a self-storage tenant.

There is already a sufficient number of Self-Storage Facilities in the market. The area around the Project site also has very little population growth or decline and the large majority (63.7 percent) of nearby housing units are owner-occupied as opposed to renters. Little fluctuation in population coupled with a low percentage of renters which tend to have a higher need for storage units decreases the viability of a Self-Storage Facility at this location. Finally, existing Self-Storage facilities in the City are ‘horizontal,’ allowing users to drive to their garages and unload directly from a truck. ‘Vertical’ or stacked storage facilities, as would be implemented in the existing Sears Department Store building, require users to unload, utilize a freight elevator, and wheel items down a corridor to their lockers, adding time and labor, and further decreasing viability.” (DEIR p. 8-6).

Hence, other uses were considered for the Project site. A storage facility was selected because it would require the least amount of structural change, is lower in intensity, and the least costly. However, despite being the least impactful, the amount of modifications necessary to reinforce the structure to support such uses, would still be extensive enough that the structure would lose its structural integrity and its features that portray the mid-century modern style. Further, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) states that among the factors that may be considered when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability and economic viability. It was determined that reuse as a storage facility would not be economically viable due to the amount of structural modifications necessary when compared to the low viability of such a use. Since this alternative was considered to be the least impactful and least costly compared to other more intense land use alternatives, it was established as a baseline land use for adaptive reuse. From this standpoint, it was concluded that any other adaptive reuse opportunities would result in greater modifications and impacts, so would also be infeasible.

Despite this infeasibility determination, large scale retailers were also considered for adaptive reuse.

However, as stated in Section 8.5.1 – Alternative 1: No Demolition/Keep Existing Commercial Designation of the Draft EIR, “The Sears building was designed for a single user. Large scale retailers requiring buildings the size of the abandoned Sears building are not choosing to locate near the Project site, instead opting for regional locations and developed shopping centers which attract larger volumes of customers. Demising the building into multiple smaller rental suites is also not possible as it would be difficult to create basic shells and floorplates for modern, creditworthy tenants. The building also has nearly 50% of its total floor area in the form of a subterranean basement which is not desirable space for the vast majority of retailers to whom this property would be marketed. (DEIR, p. 8-11) Further, according to Innova, many of the building’s systems have been removed/stolen and there are significant gaps between the structural integrity of the existing building and the current building codes thereby requiring significant modifications that in and of themselves could result in partial or full demolition of the building. Even if a new large retail use would still trigger the need for significant building upgrades and reconstruction, meeting today’s current building codes, would result in significant City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-7
changes to the existing structure. Even if the site were to be occupied by another retail use, because of the need to meet current building and seismic codes, the remodeling would be significant and would most likely result in structure changes that would detract from the historical significance of the existing structure. Additionally, a new retail user would also be subject to new approvals by the City for building permits and occupancy, both of which would trigger the need for compatibility study with the existing airport land use plan. A new retail use would also not meet the density requirements of the airport land use plan, and therefore Alternative 1 would still be considered incompatible with the airport. Therefore, Alternative 1 is rejected and considered infeasible.” (DEIR, p. 8-11) As reflected in the Feasibility of Re-Tenanting the Former Sears Building at 5261 Arlington Avenue, Riverside CA with Retail or Self-Storage Uses, prepared by Axiom Retail Advisors, Inc. dated January 17, 2024, included within Appendix C of the Draft EIR, the Retail Lease Trac database was utilized to search for tenants that need 100,000 to 200,000 square foot buildings, in a multitude of retail categories.

A list of 43 possible matches possible matches was produced. However, the types of building and targeted locations sought after by these retailers do not match the Sears building. Many of the tenants require their specific prototype to be built as opposed to reusing a vacant building. Additionally, the Regis/Sites USA demographic and mapping database was utilized to plot locations of large, big box retail and entertainment tenants to show their current locations in relation to the Sears building. Many of these retailers are already located nearby in the top retail hubs in the Riverside area. The Placer.ai locational intelligence database was utilized to identify the busiest retail hubs in the Riverside market.

Three retail hubs were produced: 1) the Galleria at Tyler located at Tyler and Magnolia Avenues; 2) the Riverside Plaza located Central and Magnolia Avenues; and 3) the Moreno Valley Mall and a multitude of national retailers located at Day Street and State Route 60. These three regional retail market hubs, compared to the intersection of the proposed Project at Arlington and Streeter Avenues, produced the following number of annual visits: 1) 9.4 million at the Galleria at Tyler; 2) 7.8 million at Riverside Plaza; and 3) 4 million at the Moreno Valley Mall. The intersection of Arlington and Streeter Avenue only produces approximately 29 thousand visits annually. Major retailers want to be clustered around other retailers in areas that attract large numbers of visitors. The location of the existing Sears structures simply do not attract enough visitors to warrant other large scale retailers. Lastly, an article from The San Bernardino Sun published on February 7, 2022, details the closing of all former Sears and Kmart stores in the Inland Empire, and the fate of many of these old buildings. Many have remained vacant for years, primarily because of locations not conducive to retail and/or functionally obsolete buildings. (AXIOM, pp. 2-3).

Due to the lack of large scale retailers requiring buildings the size of the abandoned Sears building, the location of the Project site not being regionally accessible, cost to modify the structure, ability to retain the existing mid-century modern features, and the higher intensity of retail uses, re-use of the structure for large scale retail was also considered to be infeasible.

This comment does not provide any information that changes the environmental analysis or findings contained within the Draft EIR and no new environmental issues are raised by this comment. Therefore, no further analysis or revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Response to Comment A-2:

Comment noted. However, comment is an opinion about the design of the Project but does not provide any substantial evidence or claim that the analysis contained within the Draft EIR and particularly Section 5.1 – Aesthetic Resources which addresses aesthetic impacts, is inadequate. The Draft EIR Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-8
concluded that the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to the existing character and quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Section 5.1.7 – Environmental Impacts further notes that the Project will be required to adhere to standards and local regulations required by the City of Riverside as part of the standard review process. Subsequent to circulation of the Draft EIR, the Project Applicant made revisions to the site plan and architectural elevations to address design comments from the Cultural Heritage Board (CHB). In response to CHB comments, the Project Applicant incorporated a number of architectural elements to address CHB comments related to character defining features and building architecture in tribute to the existing Sears structures. The revised site plan and architectural elevations incorporate these comments and emphasize four main Mid-Century Modern style elements for both proposed commercial and residential uses to include: clean lines, color palettes, solid simple clean box, and flat roof to unify the buildings throughout the Project site and provide homage to the existing structure. Further, each residential building will include horizontal lines, box framing, breeze block, stonework, stamped metal façade and signage will pay homage by incorporating a font similar to that of the Sears structures. These changes do not change the environmental analysis or findings contained within the Draft EIR and no new environmental issues are raised by these changes.

The comment further indicates that the Project provides too many units but is also unsubstantiated. The density proposed by the Project is analyzed and addressed throughout the Draft EIR.

City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-9
Response to Comment A-3:

This comment asks why the property owner has chosen the proposed grocery user in lieu of others. This does not constitute a CEQA issue. This comment does not provide any information that changes the environmental analysis or findings contained within the Draft EIR and no new environmental issues are raised by this comment. Therefore, no further analysis or revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Response to Comment A-4:

Comment noted. This comment offers opinions as to the location of truck loading for proposed grocery store site but does not substantiate the claims. As discussed in Response to Comment A-2 above, the aesthetic impacts of the Project are addressed in Section 5.1 – Aesthetic Resources of the Draft EIR, which concluded the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to the existing character and quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. As noted in Section 5.1.5 – Project Design Features of the Draft EIR, the Project will utilize screening walls to conceal the commercial loading dock (DEIR p, 5.1-9). As further depicted in Section 5.1 – Aesthetics of the Draft EIR, the existing Bank of America building located on the northeast corner of Streeter and Arlington Avenues, is situated between Streeter Avenue and the location of the truck loading area of the proposed grocery; essentially blocking visibility of the proposed loading area from Streeter Avenue. The loading area is also designed at an angle so as to also not be visible from Arlington Avenue. Last, the loading area will be screened by an 8-foot high metal plant support system as reflected in Figure 3.0-1, Proposed Site Plan and Figure

3.0-21, Proposed Elevations, Left and Front found in Section 3.0 – Project Description of the Draft EIR.

This comment does not provide any information that changes the environmental analysis or findings contained within the Draft EIR. No new environmental issues are raised by this comment. Therefore, no further analysis or revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Response to Comment A-5:

Comment noted. This comment provides concern for traffic at the Project driveways along Streeter Avenue. Section 5.12 – Transportation of the Draft EIR, provides an analysis for potential transportation impacts and concluded the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts related to transportation.

As discussed in Section 5.12.6 – Methodology of the Draft EIR, CEQA requires that a determination of significance rely upon vehicular miles traveled (VMT); that is a metric defined as one vehicle traveling on a road for one mile to determine how land-use patterns might impact travel; not level of service (LOS) which is a traffic congestion based metric. As further stated in Section 5.12.6 – Methodology of the Draft EIR, CEQA removed LOS as a metric for determining transportation impacts upon the environment.

The LOS data presented in Section 5.12 – Transportation of the Draft EIR is reported for informational purposes and utilized to consider the Project’s consistency with General Plan policies but is not used to gauge environmental impacts of the Project. (DEIR, p. 5.12-21) LOS is a qualitative measure describing the efficiency of traffic flow. LOS describes the way such conditions are perceived by persons traveling in a traffic stream, with LOS measurements accounting for such variables such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, traveler Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-10
comfort and convenience and safety. Measurements are graduated ranging from LOS A, representing free flow and excellent com fort for the motorist, passenger, or pedestrian, to LOS F, reflecting highly congested traffic conditions where traffic volumes approach or exceed the capacities of streets. (GP, p.

CCM-11). As per the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed Project, the City of Riverside has established LOS D as the minimum level of service for its intersections. Therefore, any intersection operating at LOS E or F would be considered deficient. (DEIR Appendix F-URBAN, p. 28).

While LOS is not a metric in determining significant impacts related to transportation, as identified in Table 5.12-B, Level of Service (LOS) – Existing and Existing Plus Project (Opening Year 2028) of the Draft EIR, operation of the proposed Project would result in a LOS C at both Project driveways along Streeter Avenue. As such, the Project would not result in an unacceptable LOS during Project operation. (DEIR, pp. 5.12-21 – 5.12-22). Hence, the Project is consistent with the City of Riverside General Plan policies CCM-2.3 and CCM-2.4, which take into account LOS.

Further, the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) which is included as Appendix F in the Draft EIR, provides a traffic signal warrant analysis to determine whether or not traffic signals are necessary, as well as a queuing analysis to determine the necessary length of turn pockets. A signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. Meeting the threshold condition for a signal warrant does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a particular location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. It should also be noted that signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant. As a result of this analysis, the Project does not meet the signal warrant criteria identified by Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, necessitating traffic signals at either driveway along Streeter Avenue. (DEIR Appendix F, URBAN, p. 27-28).

As a result of the traffic signal warrant and queuing analyses contained within the TIA, the Project has included certain design features. As identified in Section 5.12.5 – Project Design Features of the Draft EIR, the Project will design Driveway No. 1 at the intersection of Streeter Avenue and Granada Avenue to include a stop control on the westbound approach and construct a westbound shared left-through-right turn lane. The Project will design Driveway No. 2 at the intersection of Streeter Avenue and El Molino Avenue to include a stop control on the westbound approach and construct a westbound shared leftthrough-right turn lane and modify the existing median to provide 225-feet of storage for the southbound left turn lane. (DEIR, pp. 5.12-12, 5.12-13). The modification to increase the existing median length at this location is a result of the TIA’s queuing analysis.

Last, as discussed in Section 5.12.7 – Environmental Impacts of the Draft EIR and stated on page 5.12- 21, the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed Project, “…calculated existing trip generation counts as if the Project site were not vacant and still being utilized as its previous use under the existing land use; a total of 4,698 vehicular trips with 119 AM peak hour trips and 400 PM peak hour trips would result. Since the site has been vacant since approximately 2020, no trip credits were taken into account as part of this calculation. The proposed Project is estimated to generate 3,372 two-way trip-ends per day on a typical weekday with 229 AM peak hour trips and 284 PM peak hour trips; 1,326 fewer trips than the previous use.” In short, the proposed Project will result in fewer traffic trips than what the previous Sears site (existing land use) would, if still operational.

City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-11
This comment does not provide any information that changes the environmental analysis or findings contained within the Draft EIR and no new environmental issues are raised by this comment. Therefore, no further analysis or revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-12

2.5 Comment Letter B – Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Comment letter B commences on the next page.
03-006-2023-024
Dear Mr. Brian Norton,
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Arlington Mixed Use Development Project project. We have reviewed the documents and have the following comments:
[VIA EMAIL TO:[email protected]]
City of Riverside
Mr. Brian Norton
3900 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92522
March 04, 2024
Re: Notice Of Availability Of A Draft Environmental Impact Report for Arlington Mixed Use Development
Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions or require additional information, please call me at (760) 883-1137. You may also email me at [email protected].

Cordially,
Luz Salazar
Cultural Resources Analyst
Tribal Historic Preservation Office

AGUA CALIENTE BAND

OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
*The presence of an approved Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer. # * MM TCR-1 verbiage needs to be changed. This part of the section, "work shall temporarily halt until agreements are executed with consulting tribe, to provide tribal monitoring for ground disturbing." Does this pertain to prior ground disturbances or after? If it is after, we highly recommend a tribal monitor to be present at the start of any ground disturbance activities. $PNNFOU-FUUFS#
#
#
Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-14
Response to Comment Letter B – Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Response to Comment B-1:

This comment requests that the language of mitigation measures be updated to identify that the presence of an approved Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground disturbing activities. Section

5.13 – Tribal Cultural Resources of the Draft EIR provides details discussions and it should be noted that as stated in Section 5.13.6 – Methodology of the Draft EIR, this commenter provided notification on October 28, 2022 to the City of Riverside indicating the Project site is located outside of the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area and deferred to other tribes and no consultation was requested. (DEIR, p. 5.13-12) The City of Riverside has measures in place and this language is included in the Draft EIR regarding the requirements and timing of monitors in Section 5.13- Tribal Cultural Resources. Further, this language was agreed upon between the City of Riverside and the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, the consulting tribe who indicated the Project site as being located within the Luiseño Traditional Use Area. Pursuant to mitigation measure MM TCR-3, a Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Resources will be required in the event that Native American cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during ground disturbing activities (DEIR, p, 5.13-15).

Response to Comment B-2:

The comment requests that the verbiage of mitigation measure MM TCR-1 as presented in Section 5.13 – Tribal Cultural Resources of this Draft EIR, be modified. Please refer to Response to Comment B-1 above.

City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-15

2.6 Comment Letter C – Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
Comment letter C commences on the next page.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Thank you Brian. I just skimmed quickly the EIR and noticed that on page 5.6-1, paragraph 5.6 last sentence, it says “ALUC prepared a Consistency Determination letter dated….”. Shouldn’t it be “inconsistent determination”?
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Paul Rull
ALUC Director
Stay in-the-know with all things Riverside! Connect with us at RiversideCA.gov/Connect.

From: Rull, Paul <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 7:25 AM
To: Norton, Brian [email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: City of Riverside - Arlington Mixed Use Development $PNNFOU-FUUFS$
$
City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-17
Response to Comment Letter C – Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
Response to Comment C-1:

Comment indicates that the Section 5.6 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR on page 5.6- 1 incorrectly identifies that “ALUC prepared a Consistency Determination letter dated….”. This citation is in reference to the list of technical documents used throughout this particular section of the Draft EIR which includes a letter issued by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) which issued a consistency determination of the Project’s ability to comply with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Draft EIR in fact, does identify in Section 1.0 – Executive Summary ,

3.0 – Project Description, 5.6 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 5.7 - Land Use, that ALUC’s determined that the Project would be inconsistent with ALUC policy. (DEIR, pp. 1.0-2, 3.0-2,

5.6-22 to 5.6-26, and 5.7-8 to 5.7-10).

Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-18

2.7 Comment Letter D – Department of Toxic Substance Control Comment letter D commences on the next page.

Printed on Recycled Paper

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 19, 2024
Brian Norton
Senior Planner
City of Riverside
3900 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92522
[email protected]
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (DEIR) FOR THE ARLINGTON MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, DATED FEBRUARY 6, 2024 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2023060428
Dear Brian Norton:

As a Responsible Agency, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received the DEIR for the Arlington Mixed Use Development Project. The Project proposes the demolition of all existing 192,139 square foot (sf) former Sears buildings located at or near 5261 Arlington Avenue in Riverside, California. The Project proposes the development of approximately 576,203 (sf) of residential and commercial retail uses. The Project will include several amenities including: onsite leasing office, tuckunder garages, carports, a public dog park, an outdoor resort style pool and spa, a fitness area, clubhouse, shade structures with barbeques and tables, multi-use turf areas, and outdoor gaming and play spaces. The residential component of the proposed Project includes development of 27 residential buildings providing for 546,474 (sf) of residential uses and 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 $PNNFOU-FUUFS%
%
Brian Norton
March 19, 2024

Page 2 ends

dwelling units and be divided between thirteen 3-story garden style buildings providing for 318 dwelling units and fourteen 2-story townhome buildings providing for 70 dwelling units. The proposed Project will also 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. A 5,000 (sf) 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-(sf) grocery store pad. After review of the DEIR, DTSC has the following comments for consideration:

1. Section 5.6, Site Background states, “The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) granted regulatory closure for the UST (Underground Storage Tank) release via a “No Further Action” letter dated June 26, 2003. The letter indicated that corrective action should be reviewed in the future if land use changes.” The EIR further states, “On March 6, 2015, five direct push boring locations were advanced to a maximum depth of 45 feet below ground surface for soil and groundwater sampling. Sample locations were chosen to characterize potential impacts related to the former on-Site UST system, the automotive center oil/water separator, and solvent releases from the upgradient off-Site Crown Cleaners facility. TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons) concentrations below the applicable Los Angeles RWQCB maximum screening levels and volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations below the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 9 Regional Screening Levels (RSL) were detected in soil collected from the former UST and oil/water separator areas.” However, it is not clear whether the Region 9 Regional Screening Levels compared were residential or industrial/commercial. Please clarify this in the EIR. If the Regional Screening Levels (RSL) are compared industrial/commercial, further action may be necessary at the Site.

2. Section 5.6 of the EIR states, “A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (2021 Phase I ESA) was conducted by Weis Environmental dated November 11, 2021 (WEIS-A) as well as an Addendum to Phase I Environmental Site Assessment $POU
%
%
%
Brian Norton
March 19, 2024

Page 3 ends

(Addendum) dated March 10, 2023 (WEIS-B), and Work Plan for Subsurface Assessment (Work Plan) dated October 3, 2022 (WEIS-C). A Comprehensive Subsurface Assessment was also conducted by Weis Environmental dated July 31, 2023 (WEIS-D)”. Under the conclusion section of 5.6 of the EIR, it states, “Existing residual petroleum impacts and chlorinated solvent impacts may be attributed to the former UST system at the Crown Cleaners (Heritage Plaza) facility at 5190 Arlington Avenue (WEIS-D, pp. 4-5). However, with implementation of mitigation measures MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2 which require soil decontamination and vapor barriers, impacts from existing residual petroleum and chlorinated solvents would be less than significant.” In such cases, a Land Use Covenant (LUC) needs to be recorded with the County to restrict the property for a hospital for all persons, a public or private school for those under 21 years of age, and a day care center for children. No activities that will disturb the soil at or below (5) feet below grade (e.g., excavation, grading, removal, trenching, filling, earth movement, mining, or drilling) shall be allowed on the property without a Soil Management Plan approved by the regulatory agency in advance. DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to ensure any contaminants of concern are within approved screening levels for the intended land use. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil and fill material meets screening levels for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of the prior land use. Any contaminated soil brought to the surface by grading, excavation, trenching or backfilling shall be managed in accordance with all applicable provisions of state and federal law and approved by DTSC.

3. In Section 5.6.7 (Environmental Impacts), Bullet # 1 under the Workplan states, “At one of the sampling locations (near a former fueling dispenser), stained and odorous soil was observed/noted at depths of 5 and 10 feet. Soil in this limited area may be encountered during future grading activities and can be segregated $POU
%
%
Brian Norton
March 19, 2024

Page 4 ends

and removed from the Site under conventional soil management protocols.” Please indicate the mechanism utilized for excavation and how much soil will be removed. Furthermore, it is not clear why a cleanup is warranted following a regulatory agency oversight of the environmental investigation defining the nature and extent of the contamination. This should be further explained and clarified.

4. Section 5.6.8, Recommended Mitigation Measures, does not mention an operation and maintenance plan, and/or any annual monitoring requirements.

These requirements and the LUC cited above should be included in the recommended mitigation measures of the EIR. Please refer to the project for all required activities.

DTSC believes the City of Riverside must address these comments to determine if any significant impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will occur and, if necessary, avoid significant impacts under CEQA. DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Arlington Mixed-Use Development Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like any clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via email for additional guidance.

Sincerely,
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
CEQA Unit-Permitting – HWMP
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
$POU
%
%
%
Brian Norton
March 19, 2024

Page 5 ends

cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Johnson Abraham
Environmental Scientist
SMRP – Cypress
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Rebecca De Pont
Supervising Environmental Planner
CEQA Unit-Permitting/HWMP
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
CEQA Unit-Permitting/HWMP
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
CEQA Unit-Permitting/HWMP
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-24
Response to Comment Letter D – Department of Toxic Substance Control
Response to Comment D-1:

This is an introductory comment acknowledging that the Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC) reviewed the Draft EIR and accurately describes DTSC’s understanding of the proposed Project. This comment does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment D-2:

Comment correctly identifies discussions within Section 5.6 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR. Comment indicates it is not clear whether screening levels that were compared that were identified in the Draft EIR were residential or industrial/commercial. As stated on page 5.6-1 of the Draft EIR, “A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (2021 Phase I ESA) was conducted by Weis Environmental dated November 11, 2021 (WEIS-A) as well as an Addendum to Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Addendum) dated March 10, 2023 (WEIS-B), and Work Plan for Subsurface Assessment (Work Plan) dated October 3, 2022 (WEIS-C). A Comprehensive Subsurface Assessment was also conducted by Weis Environmental dated July 31, 2023 (WEIS-D)…These reports and letters are included in Appendix D of this Draft EIR.”
As stated on page 5.6-20 of the Draft EIR, “As the Project proposes a change in land use from commercial-retail to residential, an assessment from the SARWQCB was conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the 2021 Phase I ESA, Addendum, and City of Riverside General Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure MM Haz 1. In May 2022, the Project site was entered into the Site Cleanup Program of the SARWQCB by way of an Oversight Costs Reimbursement Agreement. A project scoping teleconference was conducted on May 31, 2022.” Weis Environmental subsequently submitted a draft sampling and analysis plan (i.e., drafted figure and proposed analytical program) to SARWQCB. As stated on page 5.6-21 of the Draft EIR, “Following review of the submittal, SARWQCB directed a Work Plan for the proposed land uses be completed.”
The Work Plan, dated October 3, 2022, was submitted and in a letter dated May 18, 2023. SARWQCB conditionally approved the Work Plan contingent upon modifications to address certain comments.

Following approval of the Work Plan, a Comprehensive Subsurface Assessment Report (Assessment) was completed. Subsequent to release of the Draft EIR, a more recent version of this report became available dated November 3, 2023. The contents of the updated Assessment do not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR but for clarity, Section 5.6 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials has been updated consistent with the more recent Assessment.

The Assessment identifies that 49 soil borings were sampled and that the Assessment was completed for the primary purpose of evaluating the suitability of the property for residential development. Media sampled included soil, soil gas and groundwater. Residential screening levels utilized during the assessment were based on residential land use and not industrial/commercial. (WEIS-D, p. 4, 12).

For clarity, Section 5.6 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials has been modified on page 5.6-1 of the Draft EIR, to reflect the date the updated Assessment as follows:

City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-25
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (2021 Phase I ESA) was conducted by Weis Environmental dated November 11, 2021 (WEIS-A) as well as an Addendum to Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Addendum) dated March 10, 2023 (WEIS-B), and Work Plan for Subsurface Assessment (Work Plan) dated October 3, 2022 (WEIS-C). A Comprehensive Subsurface Assessment Report (Assessment) was also conducted by Weis Environmental dated July 31November 3, 2023 (WEIS-D).

Additionally, Appendix D of the Draft EIR has been updated to include the Assessment dated November 3, 2023.

The analysis under Threshold: 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 in Section 5.6.7 – Environmental Impacts, under the Subheading Workplan, will be clarified with following text that has been modified on pages 5.6-21 and 5.6-22 of the Draft EIR as follows:

Following review of the submittal, SARWQCB directed a Work Plan for the proposed land uses be completed. The purpose of the Work Plan is to document current environmental conditions in the soil and soil gas for future residential redevelopment. The data collected during the assessment was compared to various residential screening criteria pertaining to the protection of human health and the environment; more specifically as it relates to potential vapor intrusion. More specifically, the data was used to develop soil management and vapor mitigation measures (if necessary) during anticipated future redevelopment activities for residential land uses. SARWQCB requested a total of 47 sample borings be placed around the site to measure soil gas and conditions of the soil. Borings were placed at depths ranging from 1 to 20 feet below ground surface. (WEIS-C, p. 3, 7, 9).  With the exception of some staining and odors indicative of petroleum hydrocarbons in a limited area of the Site (former UST area), no suspect soil conditions were noted during the assessment work. The residual petroleum impacts were noted at depths of 15 to 30 feet in just a few of the 49 borings drilled at the Site. Soil at these depths will not be encountered during future grading activities. At one of the sampling locations (near a former fueling dispenser), stained and odorous soil was observed/noted at depths of 5 and 10 feet. Soil in this limited area may be encountered during future grading activities and can be segregated and removed from the Site under conventional soil management protocols.
 No indications of chemicals releases were noted in any other areas of the Site (outside of the former UST system area).
 Low concentrations of gasoline and diesel range hydrocarbons were detected in six of the groundwater samples collected proximate to the former UST and fueling island system area. No benzene or methyl tert-butyl ether (primary VOCs of concern at UST release locations as referenced in the State of California Low-Threat Underground Storage Tank Case Closure Policy [PolicyLTCP]) were detected in the groundwater samples.
 There are no indications that free product is present at the Site, and free product was not observed during subsurface investigation activities.  PCE was detected in three of the groundwater samples at concentrations below the maximum contaminant level (drinking water standard). These locations are situated Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-26
topographically downgradient (northwest) of the known chlorinated solvent release location (Crown Cleaners – 5190 Arlington Avenue). The release location is situated at distances ranging from approximately 650 to 950 feet from various locations along the southern Site boundary. Other groundwater samples further downgradient from the drycleaners in the southwest portion of the Site and more proximate to the former UST system contain the chlorinated VOC solvent trichloroethene (TCE) which is a breakdown product of PCE. Other chlorinated VOCs detected in groundwater at the Site that are consistent with the solvent release at 5190 Arlington Avenue include Freon-11 and Freon-113. In the absence of PCE in each of the on-site soil samples, lack of obtained and analyzed for VOCs at the Site and no substantial TCE detected in vadose zone soil, and lack of historical chlorinated solvent use at the Site (i.e., no source identified), it is inferred that the presence of chlorinated solvents in groundwater at the Site resulted from the off-Site release at the drycleaners facility to the south and southeast of the Site.

The cleaners drycleaning property is currently under the environmental oversight of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (Site Code 401875 – Crown Cleaners/Heritage Plaza). Recent assessment was completed at this property in early 2023 and at this time, remedial actions pertaining to vapor intrusion considerations are being evaluated.
 Several VOCs were detected in soil gas samples obtained from throughout the Site. As anticipated, the highest concentrations of petroleum related VOCs were detected in and around the former UST system area. Benzene, ethylbenzene and naphthalene are the primary VOCs of concern at UST release locations as referenced in the State of California Low-Threat Closure PolicyLTCP. Naphthalene was not detected in any of the soil gas samples. All dDetected concentrations of benzene, and ethylbenzene, and naphthalene are the primary VOCs of concern at UST release locations as referenced in the LTCP. Detected concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene, and naphthalene are below both residential and commercial health risk based screening levels as published in the LTCP except for location SG21 where the presence of a bio attention zone could not be demonstrated Policy (assuming that a bio attenuation zone is present). The presence of a bio attenuation zone was confirmed by way of analysis of soil gas samples for the presence of oxygen (all greater than the four percent target percentage noted in the Policy) and analysis of shallow (one to five feet) soil for the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons.
 PCE is prevalent in soil gas throughout the Site. The highest PCE concentrations are along its southern boundary and typically in the deeper, 15-foot samples, further supporting the conclusion that Site impacts are associated with historical chlorinated solvent releases at 5190 Arlington Avenue. A few TCE detections were also noted in soil gas. Other prevalent chlorinated VOCs detected in soil gas at the Site that are consistent with the solvent release at 5190 Arlington Avenue include Freon-11, and Freon-113, and chloroform. Similar to groundwater impacts, it is inferred that the presence of chlorinated solvents in soil gas throughout the Site resulted from the off-Site release at the drycleaners facility to the south and southeast of the Site.

No further assessment of the existing Sear’s site is required in order to prepare the site for future development. In accordance with SARWQCB, future soil management related documents (i.e. SCAQMD Rule 1166 Mitigation Plan) and vapor intrusion mitigation system City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-27
plans and specifications can be uploaded to the GeoTracker Database, so that they are made available to the SARWQCB and the public. (WEIS-D, pp. 15-18).

Further, mitigation measure MM HAZ-1 in Section 5.6.8 – Recommended Mitigation Measures, has been added on pages 5.6-26 and 5.6-27 of the Draft EIR for clarity as such:

MM HAZ-1 Decontamination of Soil. During grading activities, petroleum impacted soil at the former UST system area and around one boring location B21/SG21 per the Subsurface Assessment Report prepared by Weis Environmental dated November 3, 2023, the soil shall be removed, 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 impacted soil at greater depths in the former UST and fueling islands areas shall remain in place.

As stated in the Assessment and clarified in the Draft EIR as indicated above, no further subsurface assessment at the property is warranted. Additional actions to be completed under SARWQCB oversight during site development are as follows:
• Completion of a soil removal action around a single sampling location in the area of the former UST system. The amount of soil in this area is anticipated to be limited in quantity relative to the overall volume of soil to be displaced during future Site grading activities. The petroleum impacted soil can be handled and mitigated in accordance with a South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1166 (VOC Emissions from Decontamination of Soil) Mitigation Plan. Segregation of the petroleum-impacted soil can be completed using conventional soil management practices and concurrent with Site development. • Vapor mitigation measures will be incorporated into the future foundation design of new structures to be constructed at the Site. This is primarily due to the presence of the solvent tetrachloroethene in soil gas at the Site which has resulted from an off-Site source (dry cleaner facility to the east of the subject property). Vapor mitigation systems are anticipated to include conventional vapor barriers with passive sub-slab venting.

As identified in Section 5.6.8 – Recommended Mitigation Measures, mitigation measures MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2 satisfy these recommendations.

The above clarifications do not constitute significant new information that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. This comment does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment D-3:

This comment is noted. As stated in the Response to Comment D-2, a soil removal action is planned to be completed during site development under the oversight of the SARWQCB. The work will be completed under a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to be approved by the SARWQCB. The removal action Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-28
will also be completed under a SCAQMD mitigation plan. The SMP will also discuss provisions for the evaluation of an imported fill soil that may be delivered to the subject property during future grading activities (i.e. compliance with the DTSC Clean Fill Advisory). Vapor mitigation system design and installation will also be under the oversight of the SARWQCB. Lastly, if the SARWQCB requires a Land Use Covenant (LUC) be recorded against the subject property, the owner will work collaboratively with the SARWQCB to develop the terms of the LUC and after mutual execution, it would be recorded.

This comment does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment D-4:

Comment noted. Please see Response to Comment D-2 and Response to Comment D-3 above. In addition, the anticipated quantity of impacted soil to be removed is on the order of 150 cubic yards.

This comment does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-29
Response to Comment D-5:

Comment noted. As stated in Response to Comment D-3, if the SARWQCB requires a LUC to be recorded against the subject property, the owner will work collaboratively with the SARWQCB to develop the terms of the LUC and after mutual execution, it would be recorded. Any post closure obligations would be included in the terms of the LUC with associated documents prepared accordingly.

This comment does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment D-6:

This comment is a conclusionary statement. This comment does not question the content or conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-30

2.8 Comment Letter E – Paula Horychuk
Comment letter E commences on the next page.

Response to draft EIR Arlington Mixed Use Project Riverside The draft EIR for the Arlington Mixed Use Project is rife with inconsistencies with local, state and federal policies and regulations which would require exemptions and unmitigated and absolutely avoidable and unacceptable violations of current legislation in areas including Historical preservation law, Public hazard and safety standards, zoning, general plan amendments, CEQA, SHPO and NHPA as well as impacts to the currently stable neighborhood, infrastructure and public services.

Numerous required mitigation categories are simply answered with “unavoidable serious impact’’, which BY DESIGN should indicate to the lead agency that this is the wrong project for the location and the project must not be met with approval under the circumstances.

The regulations and standards in place do not exist merely to cause planners, officials, developers and experts to demonstrate their prowess in navigating and circumventing existing legislation by acrobatic workarounds- they exist to set up the very red flags we are seeing in this document that indicate this project is inconsistent with current citywide, statewide and national standards and it should not be approved as submitted as it is wrong for this community and would represent a long term bad choice requiring too many concessions and forcing upon the city far too many “unavoidable serious impacts’ to the environment and the people who have to live in it for for generations to come.

This response will focus largely upon the proposed demolition of a known and identified Historic Resource - which is further supported, not minimized, by the expert opinion of the report provided by Albert a. Webb and associates for this draft EIR which describes the existing mid century modern Sears building thus:
“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).”
The ca state PRC code section 5029 (e) defines historical resources as designations that exist for the very purpose of “resulting in restrictions on demolitions and alterations.” CEQA employs cultural and historic preservation standards to its review process for the stated presumption that adverse impact to a cultural or historic resource is equivalent to adverse impact to the environment.

The serious and irreversible adverse impact represented in this project is planned demolition and the mitigation offered in this draft EIR is “unavoidable serious impact” which is apparently going to be pursued despite required zoning changes, amendments to the general plan for the city and ϭ
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Comment /HWWHU(
county of riverside and the ALUC (even though the airport land use commission has already ruled this project is incompatible with current standards and regulations), protest from the CHB and the public, violation of the intent and letter of CEQA compliances, and disregard for the existing Certified Local Government agreement the city of Riverside Planning Authority has with the SHPO and the National Parks Service; notwithstanding violating of the city historic preservation element of the city charter, Title 20 of the city municipal code (which I will remind planners here, SUPERCEDES Title 19 provisions where conflicts exist between Titles 19 and 20)… and that’s not to even begin to explore the other many instances in which this draft EIR seeks to overlook existing legislative protections for the community, the environment, public safety, and the economic growth and overall plan for this community and its future.

The suggested mitigations of adverse impacts in this draft EIR are, in many cases, not only complete disregard of guidelines in place to prevent projects such as this from proceeding, but also contain in certain areas infeasible, unenforceable and quite frankly ridiculous measures that have no basis in reality.

For instance: the suggested measure of “informing property management” that they can force tenants to pay for parking will not mitigate traffic impacts by causing tenants to reconsider owning a vehicle, this is completely unsubstantiated.

What we will observe is further congestion of surrounding neighborhood streets with public use of curb parking outside of this proposed gated community where our city planners think that a suggestion of paying for limited parking space is a valid measure to protect our community from this project which they seek to approve out of simple fear of not meeting state housing crisis mandates.

There are goals to supersede the state housing mandates which are commendable, however, THIS project does not meet the standards or long term goals of the city, it does not comply with CEQA, IT

MUST BE MODIFIED OR DENIED UNDER CURRENT CITY, STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES IF THIS DRAFT EIR IS ACCURATE IN ITS REPRESENTATIONS.
alternatives in this report have not been adequately explored and a range of acceptable alternatives. is not represented herein.

To describe the “no project” alternative 1 as having the same or similar impact as demolition of the site is wholly inaccurate and misrepresentative.

The only alternative offered by the lead agency in this report and draftEIR is demolition and current project proposals which is unacceptable.

Further, alternative 2- adaptive reuse - has also been represented as having the same or similar adverse impact as demolition and has been disregarded despite meeting at least 3 of the stated 5 project goals.

I would refute the implication that adaptive reuse is the same as demolition and suggest the lead agency look to a simple google search of “adaptive reuse of sears buildings” to find a plethora of creative and beneficial reuse of historic sears buildings across the United States.

Ϯ
(
&RQW
(
(

(
(
(
(
(
(
Adaptive reuse is not only a feasible and viable alternative to this project, it is the national norm.

Please see Santa Monica, Atlanta, Houston, NY, Memphis, Detroit and other many examples of financially feasible and beneficial mitigation by adaptive reuse projects.

I am embarrassed to think our city has so little interest in its future that our city planners would believe this draft EIR and its flippant effort at mitigation would not be noticed or contested.

Please accept my apology for my fellow constituents and lack of attention to the process.

This is the wrong project for this property. This draftEIR and the many hoops it will require legislatively be jumped through are indicative of that.

Please explore all feasible and reasonable project alternatives until this project can be made to comply with existing and purposeful planning legislation.

We must not bend and twist the regulations simply to get this one project made - it is why we HAVE a planning department.

Thank you
Paula Horychuk
Resident of the city of Riverside
contact Paula Horychuk <[email protected]
ϯ
(
&RQW
(
(
(
(

(
Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-34
Response to Comment Letter E – Paula Horychuk
Response to Comment E-1:

Comment suggests there are inconsistencies with federal, state, and local policies and regulations but does not identify these purported inconsistencies. Comment further indicates that exemptions would be required but does not identify what types of exemptions are required or why any exemptions would be required. The comment further indicates there are unmitigated, avoidable, and unacceptable violations of current legislation and cites a number of items, but again, does not cite any legislative statues in reference to the comment.

This comment does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required. To the extent this comment raises issues that are addressed in detail in future comments, those issues are addressed below.

Response to Comment E-2:

Comment asserts there are “required mitigation categories” that are answered by “unavoidable serious impact.” However, Comment itself is unclear. First, CEQA does not define categories for mitigation.

Second, the particular terms referenced by this comment are not cited or utilized within the Draft EIR.

Furthermore, the purpose of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) is to provide an environmental assessment that discloses to the decision-makers and public the environmental impacts of the proposed Project in order for the decision makers to have relevant information about the environmental impacts and make informed decisions. The Project has complied with CEQA through the creation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Subsequently the City of Riverside as Lead Agency (City), shall be required to prepare findings for consideration by the decision-making body, pursuant to California State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15091- Findings, which states:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
(c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-35
measures or alternatives. The finding in subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section.

The City’s decision-making body may then approve the proposed Project pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 – Approval, as follows:
(a) After considering the final EIR and in conjunction with making findings under Section 15091, the Lead Agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out the project. (b) A public agency shall not decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless either:
(1) The project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment, or (2) The agency has:
(A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as shown in findings under Section 15091, and
(B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section 15093.
(c) With respect to a project which includes housing development, the public agency shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure if it determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure available that will provide a comparable level of mitigation.

Finally, the City shall adopt Statements of Overriding Considerations as part of certification of any EIR that will result in significant and unavoidable impacts pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 – Statement of Overriding Considerations, as follows:
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-36
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination.

This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.

In summary, based on State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a) the Public agency can approve and carry out a Project for which a EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effect as long as the Lead agency makes one or more written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each of the findings. And State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 – Statement of Overriding Considerations states that when the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant environmental impacts which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record and the statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Thus, a determination of Significant and Unavoidable impact does not require a lead agency to deny the Project. The Project does include Findings and Statements of Overriding Considerations that demonstrate the positive contributions of the Project and the environmental trade-offs for City Council Consideration in order to provide a well-justified decision.

This comment does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment E-3:

The comment states that the proposed Project is not consistent with regulations and standards.

However, no specific regulations, standards, or references have been cited to support this statement. As stated in Response to Comment E-2 above, the Project would comply with the State CEQA Guidelines through adoption of the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for the Project.

Therefore, through the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report, the Findings and State of Overriding Considerations, the Project complies with CEQA. Hence, the Commenter’s assertion that the Project is wrong for the community is an unsubstantiated opinion.

This comment does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment E-4:

Comment correctly cites an unidentified excerpt from the Draft EIR. Upon review, this excerpt has been taken from page 5.3-20 of the Draft EIR. While the excerpt is taken out of context, the Draft EIR does identify that the Project will include demolition of a known and identified historic resource. The demolition of the structures is discussed in Section 5.3 – Cultural Resources of the Draft EIR. Section

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, found on pages 5.3-17 through 5.3-23 of the Draft EIR, which specifically addresses the topic of demolition and the potential of the structures meeting historic resource eligibility as defined by the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and the City of Riverside. As stated on page

5.3-21 of the Draft EIR under the subheading 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 City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-37
“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.” Ultimately, the Draft EIR concludes that for this threshold on page 5.3-23 that, “…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 State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Therefore, impacts are significant and unavoidable.” This comment does not provide any new details that are not identified in the Draft EIR or nexus for citing this comment.

This comment does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment E-5:

This comment does not provide the full reference or context of the citation from the California Public Resource Code (PRC). The full and correct citation reads as, “2023 California Public Resource Code, Division 5 – Parks and Monuments, Chapter 1 - State Parks and Monuments, Article 2 - Historical Resources, Section 5029 - Recordation of certified resolution establishing historical resources designation, Subsection (e), For the purpose of this section, the term ‘historical resources designation’ means the California Register of Historical Resources and any local historical resources designation resulting in restrictions on demolitions or alterations.” However, this subsection has been incorrectly utilized within the context of this comment because it is part of a larger set of codes related to Historic Resources; specifically Division 5 – Parks and Monuments, Chapter 1 - State Parks and Monuments, Article 2 - Historical Resources, Sections 5020 through 5029.7.

The excerpt provided by the comment is related to the procedures for the State of California to designate a historical resource, so this comment is not germane to the Project. Furthermore, as stated in Response to Comment E-4 above, the property has not been designated as a historic resource; rather it is eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR and City of Riverside as a historic resource. Because the property is eligible, as defined by California State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, it is considered to be a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA evaluation. As such, the Draft EIR analyzed the demolition and concluded impacts to be significant and unavoidable despite implementation of mitigation and as stated on page 5.3-23 of the Draft EIR, “Demolition would result in a significant unavoidable direct impact on a historical resource and would be considered a substantial adverse change under CEQA. While mitigation measures would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level, implementation of mitigation measure MM CR-1 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.”
Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-38
This comment does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment E-6:

This comment is not disputed. Cultural Section 5.3.2 – Regulatory Regulations and Tribal Cultural Resources Section 5.13.2 – Regulatory Regulations of the Draft EIR provides a full discussion of regulatory requirements and standards that apply to the proposed Project with respect to cultural and historic resources. Section 5.2 – Cultural Resources concluded that the Project would result in significant and unavoidable environmental Impacts under CEQA. This comment does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment E-7:

This comment is unclear and confusing in its delivery. The Draft EIR does not offer “unavoidable serious impact” as mitigation. As stated in Response to Comment E-4 above, and as stated in Section 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, on page 5.3-23, “…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.” Mitigation measure MM CR-1 can be found on pages 5.3-25 to 5.3-26 of the Draft EIR. Furthermore, as cited above, the Draft EIR concluded that the project would result in significant and avoidable impacts despite implementation of mitigation measure MM-CR-1.

Comment makes reference to a number of items related to components of the Project, other agencies, agreements, and City municipal codes but does not offer any specific citations, references, substantial evidence, or specific CEQA comment.

With respect to commenters reference to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the National Parks Service (NPS), as stated in Section 5.3.2 – Related Regulations of the Draft EIR, “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).” (DEIR, p. 5.3-10).

As further stated in Section 5.3.2 – Related Regulations of the Draft EIR, “The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is a state governmental function created per the National Historic Preservation Act, 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 City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-39
(CHRIS), which includes the statewide Historical Resources Inventory database. (SHPO-B).” (DEIR, p.

5.3-10)
The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of the nation's historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America's historic and archeological resources. SHPO plays a critical role carrying out many responsibilities in historic preservation such as surveying, evaluating and nominating significant historic buildings, sites, structures, districts and objects to the National Register.1
SHPO works with local governments in the development of local historic preservation programs and help them become Certified Local Governments (CLG).
2 The goal of the CLG Program is to facilitate State
and local government cooperation with Federal partners to promote nationwide preservation initiatives.

Through the certification process, local communities make a commitment to national historic preservation standards.3 The City of Riverside was certified March 16, 1995.4 As part of the CLG agreement with the SHPO, the City is required to: 1) execute and administer a program for the identification and protection of historic architectural and archeological resources throughout its jurisdiction; 2) meet the provisions of the Threshold Level of Participation delineated in the Procedures for CLGs which include: a) enforcing appropriate state and local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties; b) establishing an adequate and qualified historic preservation review commission by local law; c) maintaining a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties; and d) providing for adequate public participation in the local historic preservation program, including the process of recommending properties for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places and satisfactorily perform the responsibilities delegated to it by the state; 3) ensure that the professional technical expertise related to the subject of each recommendation for nomination is either available on the Review Commission or is obtained pursuant to the CLG Procedures; 4) enforce the historic preservation ordinance and obtain the prior approval of the SHPO for any amendments to said ordinance; and 5) shall comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to the execution and administration of the terms of the CLG Procedures. As discussed below and in Response to Comment E-2, the review of the Project has followed the processes laid out in Title 20 and CEQA.

Hence, the approval of the proposed Project will not be in violation with the City’s CLG agreement with SHPO.

Commenter further infers that the requirements of MC Title 20, supersede the requirements of MC Title 19 but this is factually incorrect. The purpose of MC Title 20 is the intent to promote the public health, safety and general welfare by providing for the identification, protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements, buildings, structures, signs, objects, features, sites, places, areas, districts,

1. Available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/state-historic-preservation-offices.htm, accessed May 31, 2024.

2. Available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservationfund/state-historic-preservation-officeprogram.htm, accessed May 31, 2024.

3. Available at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/clg/index.htm, accessed May 31, 2024.

4. Available at https://grantsdev.cr.nps.gov/CLG_Review/GetCLGCoordinator.cfm?IDNumber=901, accessed May 31, 2024.

Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-40
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 purpose of promoting these items is to: 1) safeguard the City's heritage as embodied and reflected in such resources; 2) encourage public knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the City's past; 3) foster civic and neighborhood pride and a sense of identity based on the recognition and use of cultural resources; 4) promote the enjoyment and use of cultural resources appropriate for the education and recreation of the people of the City; 5) preserve diverse and harmonious architectural styles and design preferences reflecting phases of the City's history and to encourage complementary contemporary design and construction; 6) enhance property values and to increase economic and financial benefits to the City and its inhabitants; 7) protect and enhance the City's attraction to tourists and visitors, thereby stimulating business and industry; 8) identify as early as possible and resolve conflicts between the preservation of cultural resources and alternative land uses; 9) integrate the preservation of cultural resources and the extraction of relevant data from such resources into public and private land management and development processes; 10) conserve valuable material and energy resources by ongoing use and maintenance of the existing built environment; 11) implement the City's General Plan; and 12) work in concert with the City's Zoning Code. MC Title 19 is the City’s Zoning Code.

Per MC Title 20 Section 20.010.020.A.3, the Cultural Heritage Board (CHB) has discretionary authority to review and approve applications and actions to alter, relocate, or demolish cultural resources pursuant to the provisions of the title. Hence, the CHB had the authority to approve or deny the COA for demolition of existing structures. However. per Title 20 Section 20.15.010, Table 20.15.010, while the CHB has final approving authority as it relates to certain discretionary permits and actions requiring public meeting or hearing including a Board Certificate of Appropriateness, in the case where an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being processed, the final authority is the City Council.

Furthermore, per MC Title 20 Section 20.15.020.A, if an EIR is prepared for any Certificate of Appropriateness, designation, modification, or de-designation, or other action under the title, final approval of that action is with the City Council. In such cases, the CHB shall review the Draft EIR, as it relates to cultural resources, and provide comments thereon, together with its recommendation that the project be approved or denied. The City Council authority is to consider the CHB’s comments and recommendations, and may accept, accept with modification, or decline the CHB’s recommendation.

As stated in Response to Comment E-2 above, together with the Environmental Impact Report, the City Council is required to consider the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, which demonstrate any positive contributions and environmental trade-offs in order to provide a well-justified decision.

This comment does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment E-8:

Commenter does not provide a specific mitigation measure in the example utilized; only an excerpt of language. It appears commenter may be referring to mitigation measure MM GHG-3 discussed within Section 5.5 – Greenhouse Gas of this Draft EIR but has taken the language from the mitigation measure out of context. As stated on page 5.5-34 of the Draft EIR the mitigation measure language reads as, “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 City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-41
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.”
This mitigation measure, as stated, requires information to be provided to the residential property owner and/or property management firm. It does not require the property owner and/or property management firm to unbundle parking fees from rental fees; nor does it provide a means to charge higher rental fees.

This information is readily available to residential property owners and management firms. The measure offers information about the benefit of removing parking fees from rental unit fees may allow for discounted or lower rental fees to benefit individuals who may not own a vehicle and simply ensures residential property owners and management firms are aware of this ability. The intent of the measure is to help entice individuals who may not have an automobile, by providing information to property owners and management firms about their ability to uncouple parking and rental fees; thereby allowing them provide a rental unit at a reduced rate to prospective tenants. This measure does not force a tenant to find parking elsewhere and this comment’s suggestion that this is the intent of the mitigation measure is unsubstantiated.

The purpose of this mitigation measure is aimed at reducing greenhouse gas impacts. As stated within Section 5.5.6 – Methodology on page 5.5-25 of the Draft EIR, “Amendments to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 were adopted to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of the impacts of GHG emissions. Consistent with existing CEQA practice, Section 15064.4 gives lead agencies the discretion to determine whether to assess those emissions quantitatively or qualitatively. The amendments do not establish a threshold of significance; rather, lead agencies are granted discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, including looking to thresholds developed by other public agencies or suggested by other experts, such as the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), so long as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7”)." This mitigation measure is identified within the CAPCOA Handbook entitl–d - Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity dated December 2021.

As further stated in Section 5.5.9 – Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures are Implemented of the Draft EIR on page 5.5-34, “Although the Project does not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG, the Project’s GHG emissions exceed the SCAQMD draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2E/yr which is being utilized as the City’s threshold for this Project. Implementation of local, state, and federal regulations outlined in Section 5.5.2, Project design features outlined in Section 5.5.5, and mitigation measures listed above will reduce the Project’s GHG emissions from mobile sources. However, there are no additional feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the Project’s overall GHG emissions to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project’s cumulative GHG impacts will be significant and unavoidable and a statement of overriding considerations will be required prior to Project approval.” As identified by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15187 and 15126.4, a proposed Project must consider all feasible mitigation to reduce environmental impacts. Because this is a residential/commercial mixed use Project that occurs on a previously developed site within an already developed area which provides public transit and services that are within pedestrian walking distance, it is not only appropriate, but feasible to include such a measure aimed towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions related to mobile sources. Furthermore, the Draft EIR does not rely upon mitigation measure MM GHG-3 to reduce greenhouse gas impacts to a less than significant level.

Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-42
This comment does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment E-9:

The suggestion residents would park outside the gate is unsubstantiated. A feature of the development is the gated community which provides added security to tenants and their property. Parking along Arlington and Streeter Avenues is unlikely since parking is restricted along these streets. Residents opting to park within the existing residential communities is also unlikely since this would place a resident a significant distance from the entries to the community.

The commenter’s claim that this mitigation will result in traffic congestion of surrounding neighborhoods is unsubstantiated. To the contrary, as discussed in Section 5.12 – Transportation, the Project will result in less traffic than what the current land use and prior Sears operation as discussed in Section 5.12.7 – Environmental Impact on page 5.12-21 as such, “Vehicular Circulation The City’s 2025 GP Policy CCM-2.3 requires Arterial Streets to maintain an LOS D or better. This policy also provides that at key locations, such as City Arterials that are used by regional freeway bypass traffic and at heavily traveled freeway interchanges, an LOS E at peak hours is acceptable on a case-by-case basis. The Project TIA provided a conservative trip generation analysis by evaluating a worst-case scenario by utilizing a slightly higher commercial square footage than proposed by the Project. The TIA calculated existing trip generation counts as if the Project site were not vacant and still being utilized as its previous use Under the existing land use, a total of 4,698 vehicular trips with 119 AM peak hour trips and 400 PM peak hour trips would result. Since the site has been vacant since approximately 2020, no trip credits were taken into account as part of this calculation. The proposed Project is estimated to generate 3,372 two-way trip-ends per day on a typical weekday with 229 AM peak hour trips and 284 PM peak hour trips; 1,326 fewer trips than the previous use.”
Further, it was concluded that the Project would result in less than significant impacts as it relates to transportation on page 5.12-22 of the Draft EIR, “Thus, because the proposed Project’s vehicular and non-vehicular network will be designed and constructed in compliance will all applicable regulations, will implement PDFs and improvements consistent with City requirements, and is consistent will GP policies and all applicable program plans, the Project will not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.”
This comment does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment E-10:

Comment indicates project does not meet standards or long term goals of City and does not comply with CEQA. This comment is unsubstantiated and no citations or references have been provided. As stated in Response to Comment E-2 above, the purpose of CEQA is to provide an environmental assessment that discloses to the decision-makers and public, the environmental impacts of a proposed Project in order for the decision makers to have relevant information about the environmental impacts and make informed decisions. An assessment indicating a significant and unavoidable impact does not constitute a CEQA violation. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposed Project identifies impacts considered to be significant and unavoidable. The City’s decision-making body may City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-43
approve the proposed Project pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15092. Findings and Statements of Overriding Considerations have also been prepared for the proposed Project. Together, the City may adopt the Environmental Impact Report and the Findings and State of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. Hence, the proposed Project complies with CEQA guidelines and does not violate CEQA statutes.

The comment further suggests the Project be modified or denied and suggests the Draft EIR is inaccurate. This comment is also unsubstantiated with no citations or references being provided to support this claim.

This comment does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment E-11:

Comment suggests that project alternatives have not been adequately explored and range of acceptable alternatives has not been presented. Section 8.0 – Alternatives of this Draft EIR provides an analysis and discussion of Alternatives. Commenter is referred to Section 8.3 – Rationale for Alternative Selection on page 8.0-2 of the Draft EIR which states, “State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) requires that an EIR ‘…describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.’ According to this section of the State CEQA Guidelines, ‘…an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. ‘ An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The City, as lead agency, is responsible for selecting a range of Project alternatives for examination, and there is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the “rule of reason” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (a)).

Among the factors that may be considered when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (f)(1)).” The four alternatives to the Project identified for analysis within the Draft EIR, were chosen based on their potential likelihood to reduce impacts found to be significant and unavoidable by the proposed Project and their potential ability to meet the objectives of the Project identified in Section 8.1 - Project Objectives of the Draft EIR. As further stated on page 8.0-3 of the Draft EIR, “Section 15126.6(c) further indicates that a lead agency may eliminate an alternative from detailed consideration in an EIR if it fails to meet the basic Project Objectives, is infeasible, or does not avoid significant environmental impacts.” As stated in Section 8.0 – Alternatives of the Draft EIR, “Other uses considered but rejected for consideration included a Self-Storage Facility. The existing Sears Department Store building is approximately 178,426 square feet in size which is significantly larger than typical self-storage facilities which are approximately 50,000 sf in size. A viable self-storage tenant would require multiple units that have access to the exterior of the building. This would require the addition of numerous exterior doors and cutting openings in the building. However, in doing so, the existing exterior walls of the building would not be of much use for seismic loads imposed on the structure by current code requirements, especially due to removal of the wall for creation of additional openings for storage access. For seismic requirements, the existing exterior walls would need to be reinforced with new walls inside of existing Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-44
exterior walls and associated vertical elements from these walls would need to be transferred down to the lowest foundation level with new foundations.

To utilize the existing building, it would need to be modified to reinforce and significantly upgrade the ground level building slab in order to accommodate loading parameters required for this type of use which are 2.5 times higher than the currently allowable loading for the existing structure for a one-story storage structure. Upgrades would likely require the addition of an entirely new slab. Given that the exterior walls are supported by basement foundations and new supports would be supported on grade, this introduces potential differential settlement issues between the new building supports and existing building wall supports which would not be structurally acceptable. Support in the basement would be needed, foundations would need to be added, and existing foundations would need to be upgraded. If multiple levels of are desired for a storage facility, utilization of the existing structure would be impossible.

There is already a sufficient number of Self-Storage Facilities in the market. The area around the Project site also has very little population growth or decline and the large majority (63.7 percent) of nearby housing units are owner-occupied as opposed to renters. Little fluctuation in population coupled with a low percentage of renters which tend to have a higher need for storage units decreases the viability of a Self-Storage Facility at this location. Finally, existing Self-Storage facilities in the City are “horizontal”, allowing users to drive to their garages and unload directly from a truck. “Vertical” or stacked storage facilities, as would be implemented in the existing Sears Department Store building, require users to unload, utilize a freight elevator, and wheel items down a corridor to their lockers, adding time and labor, and further decreasing viability (DEIR p. 8-6).

This comment does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment E-12:

Comment does not provide any substantiation to its claim that impacts of “Alternative 1 – No Project/No Demolition/Keep Existing Commercial Designation,” are inaccurate and misrepresentative. As described in Section 8.5.1 - No Demolition/Keep Existing Commercial Designation of the Draft EIR and as stated, “Alternative 1 involves keeping the existing 178,426 sf Sears building in its current condition City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-45
with basement and ground level, along with maintaining the existing zoning designation of General Commercial. Under this Alternative the existing building will remain as is, and no demolition would occur. The use of the site under this Alternative assumes that another large commercial retailer could move into the building as is. However, under this Alternative, the current vacant status of the site would not occur, as it is expected that another company would want to use the whole retail building without having to demolish the main Sears Department Store building. This Alternative could instead, entail the demolition of the non-historic automotive service ancillary building.” (DEIR, p. 8.0-7) A discussion of Alternative 1 as compared to the proposed Project is provided within Section 8.5.1- No Demolition/Keep Existing Commercial Designation of the Draft EIR on pages 8.0-7 to 8.0-10. A conclusion to this discussion is provided under the subheading Alternative 1 Conclusion of the Draft EIR which states, “Alternative 1 has the potential to reduce cultural resource impacts as it relates to the Project. Nonetheless, implementation of Alternative 1 would require a level of reconstruction to the existing building structure and thus would still reach the same conclusion. The site would reach the same conclusions for hazards/hazardous materials and land use planning as the proposed Project because the existing commercial designation is not consistent with RCALUCP policy, nor was the former big box retail use. Moreover, Alternative 1 would result in greater impacts as it relates to transportation and GHG as full commercial use of the site would result in a higher trip generation rate than that of the Project. Additionally, while air quality and noise impacts were found to be less than significant for the proposed Project, because Alternative 1 results in greater traffic trips, it is anticipated that these topics would be greater than that of the Project due to increased emissions and roadway noise.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) states that among the factors that may be considered when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability and economic viability. Alternative 1 would not satisfy any of the Project Objectives and would not meet the key Objective of providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocations. Additionally, the existing abandoned Sears building has been subject to extreme dismantlement and vagrancy.” (DEIR, 8.0-11) For clarity, this last sentence from the excerpt above from Section 8.5.1- No Demolition/Keep Existing Commercial Designation under the subheading Alternative 1 Conclusion, has been modified on page

8.0-11 of the Draft EIR:

Additionally, the existing abandoned Sears building has been subject to extreme dismantlement and vagrancy and vandalism targeting electrical and mechanical systems within the structure.

As outlined in Section 8.5 – Alternatives Under Consideration of the Draft EIR, “Alternative 1 is not economically viable. The Sears building was designed for a single user. Large scale retailers requiring buildings the size of the abandoned Sears building are not choosing to locate near the Project site, instead opting for regional locations and developed shopping centers which attract larger volumes of customers. Demising the building into multiple smaller rental suites is also not possible as it would be difficult to create basic shells and floorplates for modern, creditworthy tenants. The building also has nearly 50% of its total floor area in the form of a subterranean basement, which is not desirable space for the vast majority of retailers to whom this property would be marketed.

Further, according to Innova, many of the building’s systems have been removed/stolen and there are significant gaps between the structural integrity of the existing building and the current building codes thereby requiring significant modifications that in and of themselves could result in partial or full Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-46
demolition of the building. Even if a new large retail use would still trigger the need for significant building upgrades and reconstruction, meeting today’s current building codes, which would result in significant changes to the existing structure. Even if the site were to be occupied by another retail use, because of the need to meet current building and seismic codes, the remodeling would be significant and would most likely result in structure changes that would detract from the historical significance of the existing structure. Additionally, a new retail user would also be subject to new approvals by the City for building permits and occupancy, both of which would trigger the need for compatibility study with the existing airport land use plan. A new retail use would also not meet the density requirements of the airport land use plan, and therefore Alternative 1 would still be considered incompatible with the airport.

Therefore, Alternative 1 is rejected and considered infeasible.

Thus, since Alternative 1 would most likely result in the same or similar impacts to the existing structure, its historical context and significance would also be impacted. Therefore, Alternative 1 is considered not feasible, and does not meet most of the Project Objectives.” (DEIR, p. 8-11) Furthermore, as reflected in the Feasibility of Re-Tenanting the Former Sears Building at 5261 Arlington Avenue, Riverside CA with Retail or Self-Storage Uses, prepared by Axiom Retail Advisors, Inc. dated January 17, 2024, included within Appendix C of the Draft EIR, the Retail Lease Trac database was utilized to search for tenants that need 100,000 to 200,000 square foot buildings, in a multitude of retail categories. A list of 43 possible matches possible matches was produced. However, the types of building and targeted locations sought after by these retailers do not match the Sears building. Many of the tenants require their specific prototype to be built as opposed to reusing a vacant building.

Additionally, the Regis/Sites USA demographic and mapping database was utilized to plot locations of large, big box retail and entertainment tenants to show their current locations in relation to the Sears building. Many of these retailers are already located nearby in the top retail hubs in the Riverside area.

The Placer.ai locational intelligence database was utilized to identify the busiest retail hubs in the Riverside market. Three retail hubs were produced: 1) the Galleria at Tyler located at Tyler and Magnolia Avenues; 2) the Riverside Plaza located Central and Magnolia Avenues; and 3) the Moreno Valley Mall and a multitude of national retailers located at Day Street and State Route 60. These three regional retail market hubs, compared to the intersection of the proposed Project at Arlington and Streeter Avenues, produced the following number of annual visits: 1) 9.4 million at the Galleria at Tyler; 2)

7.8 million at Riverside Plaza; and 3) 4 million at the Moreno Valley Mall. The intersection of Arlington and Streeter Avenue only produces approximately 29 thousand visits annually. Major retailers want to be clustered around other retailers in areas that attract large numbers of visitors. The location of the existing Sears structures simply do not attract enough visitors to warrant other large scale retailers.

Lastly, an article from The San Bernardino Sun published on February 7, 2022, details the closing of all former Sears and Kmart stores in the Inland Empire, and the fate of many of these old buildings. Many have remained vacant for years, primarily because of locations not conducive to retail and/or functionally obsolete buildings. (AXIOM, pp. 2-3).

Due to the lack of large scale retailers requiring buildings the size of the abandoned Sears building, the location of the Project site not being regionally accessible, cost to modify the structure, ability to retain the existing mid-century modern features, and the higher intensity of retail uses, Alternative 1 – No Project/No Demolition/Keep Existing Commercial Designation, which would re-use the structure for large scale retail, was also considered to be infeasible.

The above clarifications do not constitute significant new information that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. In general, this comment is City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-47
unsubstantiated with no citations or references provided to support this claim. This comment does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment E-13:

Comment states the only alternative offered is demolition and current proposals. The purpose of the Draft EIR is to analyze the Project that is proposed. Section 8.0 – Alternative of the Draft EIR, provides an analysis of feasible alternatives. As stated in Response to Comment E-11 and Response to Comment E-12 above, as discussed on page 8.0-2 of the Draft EIR, “ ‘…an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation.’ An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The City, as lead agency, is responsible for selecting a range of Project alternatives for examination, and there is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the ’rule of reason‘ (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (a)).

This comment is unsubstantiated. This comment does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment E-14:

Commenter is referred to Response to Comments E-11 and E-13 above, as well as E-15 below. This comment is unsubstantiated. This comment does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment E-15:

The commenters suggestion the Draft EIR implies that adaptive reuse is the same as demolition in an opinion and unsubstantiated. Section 8.5.2 – Alternative 2: Adaptive Reuse to Residential discussed on pages 8.0-11 to 8.0-15 of the Draft EIR describes an Alternative that would utilize adaptive reuse as an Section 2.0 City of Riverside
Responses to Comments Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 2-48
attempt to keep the existing structure. As stated under the subheading Alternative 2 Conclusion of this section of page 8.0-14 and 8.0-15 states, “Alternative 2 Adaptive Reuse was studied and considered.

However, as identified in Appendix C, adaptive reuse and the need to meet the current building code, presents issues that would compromise the integrity of the building or the safety of the occupants.

Alternative 2 meets three out of the five Project Objectives. However, this Alternative does not provide any mixed uses so it only partially meets the Objectives related to bringing mixed uses to the City, and only partially meets the key Objective of helping the City meet its RHNA obligations. As outlined above in Section 8.4.3, the marketability of the site being adaptively reused is very difficult related to the existing building codes and the type of structure remaining. Additionally, this use would also still not be compatible with the airport land use plans, which would still require a statement of overriding considerations as does the proposed Project.

Given the significant reconstruction and reconfiguration of the existing building that would need to take place to accomplish adaptive reuse, and that any adaptive reuse would still be considered incompatible with the airport land use plan, Alternative 2 is rejected as infeasible.” Regarding the commenters suggestion that other Sears buildings in the United States have been adaptively reused, the most common adaptive re-use structures have existing windows within the structure; whereas the existing Sears building at the center of the proposed Project does not. As cited above, to meet California Building Code Guidelines, incorporation of windows within each residential unit is required, and installing of the windows will sacrifice the structural integrity of the existing structure.

Section 8.4.3– Other Uses Considered for the Site of the Draft EIR, a self-storage facility, which is a use that would require the least amount of modification to the structures, was considered a baseline for re-use. As stated on page 8.0-6, “ …utilizing the existing building as a self-storage facility was considered, but ultimately rejected by the Project proponent because of the structural issues required for this adaptive reuse…”
Since this re-use would require the least amount of modification to the structure, yet still result in a compromise to structural integrity, any other use would only exacerbate this issue.

This comment does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment E-16:

Comment is an opinion and does not constitute a CEQA concern. This comment does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment E-17:

Response to Comment E-18:

City of Riverside Section 2.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Responses to Comments FEIR 2-49
Comment is an opinion and does not constitute a CEQA concern nor does it offer any substantiation.

This comment does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment E-19:

Commenter is referred Response to Comments E-11 and E-13 above. This comment does not provide any substantiation and does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

Response to Comment E-20:

Comment is an opinion and does not constitute a CEQA concern nor does it offer any substantiation.

This comment does not provide any new information that changes the conclusions of the Draft EIR. As such, no new environmental issues are raised by this comment and no further analysis is required.

City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Draft EIR Revisions/Errata FEIR 3-1

3.0 Draft EIR Revisions/Errata
Any corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) text, tables, and figures generated either from responses to comments or independently by the City, are stated in this section of the Final EIR. The Draft EIR text, tables, and figures have not been modified and published in its entirety as a single document to reflect these Draft EIR modifications.

These Draft EIR revisions are provided to provide supplemental information for the Arlington Mixed Use Project Draft EIR. These changes to the Draft EIR merely amplify and clarify the analysis in the Draft EIR and constitute insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR.

The information included in these Draft EIR revisions that resulted from the public review process or the Cultural Heritage Board Workshop does not constitute substantial new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5).

3.1 Introduction
The Draft EIR was prepared to determine if there is potential for any significant environmental effects associated with the proposed Project components described in Draft EIR Section 3.4, Project Description, for the Arlington Mixed Use Project.

Pursuant to Section 15105 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day period between February 6, 2024 and March 22, 2024 to Responsible Agencies and interested parties for review and comment.

Section 15090 of the State CEQA Guidelines, requires the decision-making body to consider the proposed Draft EIR together with any comments received during the public review process. The materials contained in this Final EIR include copies of comment letters and the City’s responses to the applicable comments in each letter. Each comment letter is labeled alphabetically with each individual comment identified by a number. In order to provide the decision makers with additional information upon which to base their decision, copies of the comment letters are included in Section 2.0 – Response to Comments of this Final EIR.

Comments that were received on the Draft EIR during the public review period may have resulted in minor errata/revisions to the text of the Draft EIR. These textual changes to the Draft EIR were determined by the City not to be “substantial revision” as defined in Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.

The modifications contained in the following pages is in the same order as the information appears in the Draft EIR. Changes in text are signified by strikethrough (example text) where text has been removed and by double underline (example text) where text has been added. The applicable section numbers and/or page numbers from the Draft EIR are also provided where necessary for easy reference.

3.1.1 Section 1.0 – Executive Summary
On January 17, 2024, the Project Applicant engaged in a Workshop with the Cultural Heritage Board (CHB) to discuss the Project. Following a presentation by the Project Application and discussions among CHB members, CHB commented that the character defining features of the existing Sears building could be reflected better in a new design, that the building architecture should be highlighted, Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Draft EIR Revisions/Errata Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 3-2
and a preference to keep the building rather than demolishing it. While the Draft EIR has established in Section 5.3 – Cultural Resources and Section 8.0 – Alternatives the infeasibility of keeping the existing structures, the Project Applicant did incorporate a number of architectural elements to address CHB comments related to character defining features and building architecture in tribute to the existing Sears structures.

Subsequent to circulation of the Draft EIR, the Project Applicant made these revisions to the site plan and architectural elevations to address design comments from the CHB. Minor errata/revisions to the text and figures of the Draft EIR are necessary to incorporate changes to address CHB comments.

However, these changes do not change the environmental analysis or findings contained within the Draft EIR and no new environmental issues are raised by these changes.

In response to the CHB Workshop, the following text within Section 1.0 – Executive Summary has been modified. Specifically, text within Section 1.4.3 - Proposed Project under the subheading Residential on page 1.0-6 of the Draft EIR has been modified as follows:

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.

In response to the CHB Workshop, the following text within Section 1.0 – Executive Summary has been modified. Specifically, text within Section 1.4.3 - Proposed Project under the subheading CommercialRetail on page 1.0-6 of the Draft EIR has been modified as follows:

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.

In response to the comments received during the CHB Workshop the following table and figures have been revised to reflect the revisions to the site plan and architectural features found on pages 1.0-22,

1.0-23, 1.0-26 to 1.0-32, 1.0-36 to 1.0-40, 1.0-43, and 1.0-48 to 1.0-50 of the Draft EIR:

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
City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Draft EIR Revisions/Errata FEIR 3-3
Table 3.0-B, Building Square Footage Summary
Building Type Building No. Dwelling Units Square Footage 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
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
Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Draft EIR Revisions/Errata Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 3-4
 Figure 1.0-10, Proposed Site Plan
 Figure 1.0-11, Tentative Parcel Map
 Figure 1.0-12, Existing Site Conditions
 Figure 1.0-13, Proposed Demolition Plan
 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]  Figure 1.0-20, Proposed Elevations ALDI Right & Rear
 Figure 1.0-21, Proposed Elevations ALDI Left & Front
 Figure 1.0-22, Proposed Parking Plan
 Figure 1.0-23, Conceptual Landscape Plan
 Figure 1.0-24, Landscape Planting Plan
 Figure 1.0-27, Wall and Fence Plan
 Figure 1.0-28, Wall and Fence Plan Details [1 of 2]
 Figure 1.0-29, Wall and Fence Plan Details [2 of 2]
 Figure 1.0-32, Pedestrian Circulation
 Figure 1.0-33, Existing and Proposed Utility Plan
 Figure 1.0-34, Proposed Drainage and Grading Plan

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

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

Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Draft EIR Revisions/Errata Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 3-32
For clarity, Section 1.4.1 – Project Land Use Applications has been modified for clarity. Page 1-3 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:
 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.

City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Draft EIR Revisions/Errata FEIR 3-33
In response errata identified within Section 3.1.1 through 3.1.13 below, Table 1.0-E, DEIR Impact Summary Matrix within Section 1.13 – Summary of Environmental Impacts commencing on page 1.0-53 of the Draft EIR has been modified as follows.

Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementatio
n Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
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 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
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
Prior to issuance of
grading plans
permit issuance
Developer /
ArchaeologistCity
Less than significant
Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Draft EIR Revisions/Errata Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 3-34
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementatio
n Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
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
City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Draft EIR Revisions/Errata FEIR 3-35
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementatio
n Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
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 resources. Each
worker shall also learn the proper
procedures to follow in the event that
cultural resources, tribal cultural
resources, or human remains are
Prior to
construction
activities grading
permit issuance
Developer /
Archaeologist
Less than significant
Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Draft EIR Revisions/Errata Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 3-36
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementatio
n Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
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
During initial
ground disturbance
In the event of
discovery
Developer /
Archaeologist
Less than significant
City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Draft EIR Revisions/Errata FEIR 3-37
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementatio
n Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
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.

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
Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Draft EIR Revisions/Errata Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 3-38
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementatio
n Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
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 EIC
Treatment and Disposition of
Cultural Resources.

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
City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Draft EIR Revisions/Errata FEIR 3-39
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementatio
n Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
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
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
Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Draft EIR Revisions/Errata Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 3-40
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementatio
n Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
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
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 pregrade 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
Prior to grading
permit issuance
Developer /
Archaeologist /
Native American
Less than significant
City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Draft EIR Revisions/Errata FEIR 3-41
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementatio
n Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
archaeologist and Native American
monitors shall attend the pre-grading
meeting with the developer/permit
holder’s contractors to provide
Cultural Sensitivity Training for all
construction personnel. This shall
include the procedures to be followed
during ground disturbance in sensitive
areas and protocols that apply in the
event that unanticipated resources are
discovered. Only construction
personnel who have received this
training can conduct construction and
disturbance activities in sensitive
areas. A sign-in sheet for attendees of
this training shall be included in the
Phase IV Monitoring Report.

Monitors
MM CR-56: 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 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.
(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
In the event of
discovery
Developer /
Archaeologist
Less than significant
Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Draft EIR Revisions/Errata Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 3-42
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementatio
n Timing
Responsible
Party
Impact After
Mitigation
Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program).

Would the Project disturb any human
remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
See MM CR-56 above (From Initial
Study)
See MM CR-56
above
See MM CR-56
above
Less Than Significant
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,
petroleum impacted soil at the former
UST system area and around one
boring location B21/SG21 per the
Subsurface Assessment Report
prepared by Weis Environmental
dated November 3, 2023, the soil shall
be removed, 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 nonimpacted soil using the convention soil management soil practices.

However, petroleum impacted soil at
greater depths in the former UST and
fueling island areas shall remain in
place.

Prior to issuance of
building permit
Developer /
Contractor
Less Than Significant
City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Draft EIR Revisions/Errata FEIR 3-43

3.1.2 Section 2.0 – Introduction
No changes were made to this Section of the Draft EIR.

3.1.3 Section 3.0 – Project Description
On January 17, 2024, the Project Applicant engaged in a Workshop with the Cultural Heritage Board (CHB) to discuss the Project. Following a presentation by the Project Application and discussions among CHB members, CHB commented that the character defining features of the existing Sears building could be reflected better in a new design, that the building architecture should be highlighted, and a preference to keep the building rather than demolishing it. While the Draft EIR has established in Section 5.3 – Cultural Resources and Section 8.0 – Alternatives the infeasibility of keeping the existing structures, the Project Applicant did incorporate a number of architectural elements to address CHB comments related to character defining features and building architecture in tribute to the existing Sears structures.

However, these changes do not change the environmental analysis or findings contained within the Draft EIR and no new environmental issues are raised by these changes.

In response to the CHB Workshop, the following text within Section 3.0 – Project Description has been modified. Specifically, text within Section 3.4.3 - Proposed Project under the subheading Residential on page 3.0-6 of the Draft EIR has been modified as follows:

In response to the CHB Workshop, the following text within Section 3.0 – Project Description has been modified. Specifically, text within Section 3.4.3 - Proposed Project under the subheading CommercialRetail on page 3.0-6 of the Draft EIR has been modified as follows:

Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Draft EIR Revisions/Errata Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 3-44
In response to the comments received during the CHB Workshop the following figures has been revised to reflect the revisions to the site plan and architectural features found on pages 3.0-22, 3.0-23, 3.0-26 to 3.0-28, 3.0-32 to 3.0-36, 3.0-39, and 3.0-44 to 3.0-46 of the Draft EIR:
 Figure 3.0-10, Proposed Site Plan
 Figure 3.0-11, Tentative Parcel Map
 Figure 3.0-12, Existing Site Conditions
 Figure 3.0-13, Proposed Demolition Plan
 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]  Figure 3.0-20, Proposed Elevations ALDI Right & Rear
 Figure 3.0-21, Proposed Elevations ALDI Left & Front
 Figure 3.0-22, Proposed Parking Plan
 Figure 3.0-23, Conceptual Landscape Plan
 Figure 3.0-24, Landscape Planting Plan
 Figure 3.0-27, Wall and Fence Plan
 Figure 3.0-28, Wall and Fence Plan Details [1 of 2]
 Figure 3.0-29, Wall and Fence Plan Details [2 of 2]
 Figure 3.0-32, Pedestrian Circulation
 Figure 3.0-33, Existing and Proposed Utility Plan
 Figure 3.0-34, Proposed Drainage and Grading Plan

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

Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Draft EIR Revisions/Errata Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 3-72
For clarity, Section 3.4.1 – Project Land Use Applications has been modified for clarity. Page 3-3 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:
 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.

3.1.4 Section 4.0 – Environmental Effects found Not Significant No changes were made to this Section of the Draft EIR.

3.1.5 Section 5.0 – Environmental Analysis
No changes were made to this Section of the Draft EIR.

3.1.6 Section 5.1 – Aesthetic Resources
In response to the CHB Workshop, the following text within Section 5.1 – Aesthetic Resources has been modified. Specifically, text within Section 5.1.5 – Project Design Features on pages 5.1-5 through 5.1-6 of the Draft EIR has been modified as follows:

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 MidCentury 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 Mid-Century 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.

Two-story 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 Mid-Century Modern classical contemporary design, complementing the Clubhouse/Leasing/Fitness Center, united through colors and enhanced materials. Each residential building will include horizontal lines, box framing, breeze block, stonework, and City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Draft EIR Revisions/Errata FEIR 3-73
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.

In response to the CHB Workshop, the following text on page 5.1-10 of the Draft EIR has been modified as follows:

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.

Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Draft EIR Revisions/Errata Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 3-74
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
In response to the comments received during the CHB Workshop the following figures has been revised to reflect the revisions to the site plan and architectural features found on pages 5.1-7, 5.1-8, 5.1-12,

5.1-13 of the Draft EIR:
 Figure 5.1-1, Architectural Details (Clubhouse Leasing)  Figure 5.1-2, Architectural Details (Retail)
 Figure 5.1-3, Views of Entry Residential from Streeter Avenue  Figure 5.1-4, Views of Townhomes and Pedestrian Connectivity And in accordance with the revised text and response to comments regarding architectural features, the following figures have been added to Section 5.1 – Aesthetics:
 Figure 5.1-5, Views Along Streeter Avenue
 Figure 5.1-6, View of Entry Commercial form Arlington Avenue

City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Draft EIR Revisions/Errata FEIR 3-81

3.1.7 Section 5.2 – Air Quality
No changes were made to this Section of the Draft EIR.

3.1.8 Section 5.3 – Cultural Resources
Subsequent to circulation of the Draft EIR for public review, it was noted that there were inconsistencies with the mitigation measures proposed in Section 5.3 – Cultural Resources as they relate to architectural resources with respect to monitoring. As identified in Section 5.13 – Tribal Cultural Resources on page

5.13-14 of the Draft EIR, the City engaged in consultation with the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (Rincon). Rincon requested consultation with City because the Project site is located within the Traditional Use Area of the Luiseño people. During consultation, mitigation measures were agreed upon between the City of Riverside and Rincon with respect to the handling of archaeological resources and monitoring activities. So as not to result in a conflict during implementation, mitigation measures MM CR-2 through MM CR-4 within Section 5.3 – Cultural Resources on pages 5.3-26 to 5.3-27 of the Draft EIR are being replaced with the following:

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 postconstruction 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 Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Draft EIR Revisions/Errata Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 3-82
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 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.

City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Draft EIR Revisions/Errata FEIR 3-83
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:

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 Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Draft EIR Revisions/Errata Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 3-84
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.

Additionally, mitigation measures MM CR-5 below is added to coincide with mitigation identified within Section 5.13 – Tribal Cultural Resources, while the existing mitigation measures MM-CR 5 is being renumbered to MM-CR 6 as follows:

MM CR-5 Cultural Sensitivity Training. The Secretary of Interior Standards County certified archaeologist and Native American monitors shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the developer/permit holder’s contractors to provide Cultural Sensitivity Training for all construction personnel. This shall include the procedures to be followed during ground disturbance in sensitive areas and protocols that apply in the event that unanticipated resources are discovered. Only construction personnel who have received this training can conduct construction and City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Draft EIR Revisions/Errata FEIR 3-85
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).

Based on the above modifications to mitigation measures, the following edits are necessary to reflect the correct numbering of mitigation measures. The following text on page on page 5.3-24 is revised as follows:

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.

Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Draft EIR Revisions/Errata Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 3-86
The following text under Section 5.3.8 – Recommended Mitigation Measures on pages 5.3-24 and 5.3-25 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:

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.

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.

Last the following text under Section 5.3.9 – Summary of Project-Specific Environmental Effects After Mitigation Measures Are Implemented on page 5.3-28 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:

It was determined that existing structures on the Project parcel are 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.

Additionally, a Cultural Resources Technical Report Memorandum was prepared by DUDEK on April 25, 2024 (DUDEK- C) to clarify the management recommendations for archaeological resources contained with Section 9.3 of the Cultural Resources Technical Report dated June May 2023 prepared for the project (DUDEK-A) which discloses these recommendations as “archaeological resources mitigation.” This Memorandum has been added to Appendix C of the Draft EIR. As such, page 5.3-1 of the Draft EIR has been modified as follows:

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 (DUDEK- C). An Adaptive Reuse Study was City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Draft EIR Revisions/Errata FEIR 3-87
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.

For the sake of clarity, these measures are better referred to as “recommendations” as the Draft EIR which was prepared pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines contains the actual relevant mitigation measures for the proposed Project. The Memorandum further notes that any consultations/meetings that may have occurred on the part of the City of Riverside with respect to historic and archaeological resources or agreements as part of California Native American Tribal consultations supersede any of the recommendations of the June May 2023 report. These changes do not change the environmental analysis or findings contained within the Draft EIR and no new environmental issues are raised by these changes.

3.1.9 Section 5.4 – Energy
No changes were made to this Section of the Draft EIR.

3.1.10 Section 5.5 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
No changes were made to this Section of the Draft EIR.

3.1.11 Section 5.6 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
For clarity, Section 5.6 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials has been modified. Page 5.6-1 of the Draft EIR has been revised to reflect the date of the updated Assessment as follows:

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (2021 Phase I ESA) was conducted by Weis Environmental dated November 11, 2021 (WEIS-A) as well as an Addendum to Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Addendum) dated March 10, 2023 (WEIS-B), and Work Plan for Subsurface Assessment (Work Plan) dated October 3, 2022 (WEIS-C). A Comprehensive Subsurface Assessment Report (Assessment) was also conducted by Weis Environmental dated July 31November 3, 2023 (WEIS-D).

Additionally, Appendix D of the Draft EIR has been updated to include the Assessment dated November 3, 2023.

Workplan
Following review of the submittal, SARWQCB directed a Work Plan for the proposed land uses be completed. The purpose of the Work Plan is to document current environmental conditions in the soil and soil gas for future residential redevelopment.

Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Draft EIR Revisions/Errata Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 3-88
The data collected during the assessment was compared to various residential screening criteria pertaining to the protection of human health and the environment; more specifically as it relates to potential vapor intrusion. More specifically, the data was used to develop soil management and vapor mitigation measures (if necessary) during anticipated future redevelopment activities for residential land uses. SARWQCB requested a total of 47 sample borings be placed around the site to measure soil gas and conditions of the soil. Borings were placed at depths ranging from 1 to 20 feet below ground surface. (WEIS-C, p. 3, 7, 9).
 With the exception of some staining and odors indicative of petroleum hydrocarbons in a limited area of the Site (former UST area), no suspect soil conditions were noted during the assessment work. The residual petroleum impacts were noted at depths of 15 to 30 feet in just a few of the 49 borings drilled at the Site. Soil at these depths will not be encountered during future grading activities. At one of the sampling locations (near a former fueling dispenser), stained and odorous soil was observed/noted at depths of 5 and 10 feet. Soil in this limited area may be encountered during future grading activities and can be segregated and removed from the Site under conventional soil management protocols.  No indications of chemicals releases were noted in any other areas of the Site (outside of the former UST system area).
 Low concentrations of gasoline and diesel range hydrocarbons were detected in six of the groundwater samples collected proximate to the former UST and fueling island system area. No benzene or methyl tert-butyl ether (primary VOCs of concern at UST release locations as referenced in the State of California Low-Threat Underground Storage Tank Case Closure Policy [PolicyLTCP]) were detected in the groundwater samples.
 There are no indications that free product is present at the Site, and free product was not observed during subsurface investigation activities.  PCE was detected in three of the groundwater samples at concentrations below the maximum contaminant level (drinking water standard). These locations are situated topographically downgradient (northwest) of the known chlorinated solvent release location (Crown Cleaners – 5190 Arlington Avenue). The release location is situated at distances ranging from approximately 650 to 950 feet from various locations along the southern Site boundary. Other groundwater samples further downgradient from the drycleaners in the southwest portion of the Site and more proximate to the former UST system contain the chlorinated VOC solvent trichloroethene (TCE) which is a breakdown product of PCE. Other chlorinated VOCs detected in groundwater at the Site that are consistent with the solvent release at 5190 Arlington Avenue include Freon-11 and Freon-113. In the absence of PCE in each of the on-site soil samples, lack of obtained and analyzed for VOCs at the Site and no substantial TCE detected in vadose zone soil, and lack of historical chlorinated solvent use at the Site (i.e., no source identified), it is inferred that the presence of chlorinated solvents in groundwater at the Site resulted from the off-Site release at the drycleaners facility to the south and southeast of the Site. The cleaners drycleaning property is currently under the environmental oversight of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (Site Code 401875 – Crown Cleaners/Heritage Plaza). Recent assessment City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Draft EIR Revisions/Errata FEIR 3-89
was completed at this property in early 2023 and at this time, remedial actions pertaining to vapor intrusion considerations are being evaluated.  Several VOCs were detected in soil gas samples obtained from throughout the Site.

As anticipated, the highest concentrations of petroleum related VOCs were detected in and around the former UST system area. Benzene, ethylbenzene and naphthalene are the primary VOCs of concern at UST release locations as referenced in the State of California Low-Threat Closure PolicyLTCP. Naphthalene was not detected in any of the soil gas samples. All dDetected concentrations of benzene, and ethylbenzene, and naphthalene are the primary VOCs of concern at UST release locations as referenced in the LTCP. Detected concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene, and naphthalene are below both residential and commercial health risk based screening levels as published in the LTCP except for location SG21 where the presence of a bio attention zone could not be demonstrated Policy (assuming that a bio attenuation zone is present). The presence of a bio attenuation zone was confirmed by way of analysis of soil gas samples for the presence of oxygen (all greater than the four percent target percentage noted in the Policy) and analysis of shallow (one to five feet) soil for the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons.  PCE is prevalent in soil gas throughout the Site. The highest PCE concentrations are along its southern boundary and typically in the deeper, 15-foot samples, further supporting the conclusion that Site impacts are associated with historical chlorinated solvent releases at 5190 Arlington Avenue. A few TCE detections were also noted in soil gas. Other prevalent chlorinated VOCs detected in soil gas at the Site that are consistent with the solvent release at 5190 Arlington Avenue include Freon-11, and Freon-113, and chloroform. Similar to groundwater impacts, it is inferred that the presence of chlorinated solvents in soil gas throughout the Site resulted from the off-Site release at the drycleaners facility to the south and southeast of the Site.

No further assessment of the existing Sear’s site is required in order to prepare the site for future development. In accordance with SARWQCB, future soil management related documents (i.e. SCAQMD Rule 1166 Mitigation Plan) and vapor intrusion mitigation system plans and specifications can be uploaded to the GeoTracker Database, so that they are made available to the SARWQCB and the public. (WEIS-D, pp. 15-18).

The analysis under Threshold: 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 in Section 5.6.7 – Environmental Impacts, under the Subheading Conclusion, will be clarified with following text that has been modified on pages 5.6-26 and 5.6-27 of the Draft EIR as follows:

Conclusion
ALUC Commissioners issued a letter finding the Project to be inconsistent with ALUC policy and a separate letter expressing their concerns over the Project. Pursuant to the PUC Sections 21676 and 21676.5, the City may overrule the ALUC’s inconsistency determination if, after a public hearing, the City makes findings that the Project is consistent with the purposes set forth in PUC sections 21670 and 21670(a)(2) which provides that the purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect public health, safety Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Draft EIR Revisions/Errata Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 3-90
and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adopting of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. The existing Sears Department Store and Automotive Service Center, as well as the existing residential, commercial and office uses surrounding the Project site are considered to be incompatible with ALUC policy so the area is already devoted to incompatible uses. As identified in Section 3.0 – Project Description, the Project includes a proposal to override ALUC’s inconsistency determination in accordance with PUC Sections 21670. In the event the City pursues and overrule to ALUC’s determination, ALUC has provided conditions of approval for which the Project shall be required to adhere.

Hence, the Project would be inconsistent with ALUC and City land use policy. However, the existing Sears Department Store and Automotive Service Center, as well as the existing residential, commercial, and office uses surrounding the Project site are also considered to be incompatible with ALUC policy. So while the proposed Project resulted in an inconsistency determination from ALUC, it is consistent and compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. Regardless, even with implementation of mitigation measure MM HAZ-3, the Project would result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area so the City may override the ALUC determination pursuant to PUC Section 21670. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Further, mitigation measure MM HAZ-1 in Section 5.6.8 – Recommended Mitigation Measures, has been added on pages 5.6-26 and 5.6-27 of the Draft EIR for clarity as such:

3.1.12 Section 5.7 – Land Use and Planning
The analysis under Threshold: 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 in Section 5.7.7 – Environmental Impacts, will be modified on pages 5.7-9 and

5.7-10 of the Draft EIR for clarity as follows:

The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone will bring the Project site’s land use and zoning designations consistent with the proposed uses. City MC Chapter

19.100.040 identifies that total gross acreage be utilized to determine residential City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Draft EIR Revisions/Errata FEIR 3-91
density. With respect to the MU-V zone, maximum allowable density is 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). As identified in MC Chapter 19.120.050, development standards are applicable to all development within the mixed-use zone. As such, all parcels proposed as MU-V as part of this Project are coupled to the same development standards meaning the entire gross acreage of 17.43 gross acres is utilized to calculate residential density. In accordance with City MC, the Project would result in an overall site density of 22.3 du/ac. However, in order to provide the most conservative density calculation, the net acreage of proposed residential parcel alone, was utilized to calculate maximum site density for this Project. As a result, the Project would result in a maximum residential density of 26.9 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).1 This density is consistent with the MU-V designation as it is still less than the maximum density of 30 du/ac. As such, the proposed Project would be fully consistent with the Riverside General Plan objectives and policies identified in Section 5.7.2 except for the following; Objective LU22, Policy LU-22.2, Policy LU -22.3, Policy LU-22.5 and Policy LU-22.7 due to the Project’s proximity to the Riverside Municipal Airport. The Project site is located within Zones B1, C, and D of the RMA LUCP. As discussed in Section 5.6 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials of this Draft EIR, the Project was determined by the Riverside County ALUC to be inconsistent with this plan. Since the Project is located within the RMA LUCP airport zones and the Project is inconsistent with the land use and density designations outlined in each of the applicable zones of the RMA LUCP, the Project would be inconsistent with the five identified Riverside General Plan objectives and policies. However, as also identified in Section 5.6.7 – Environmental Impacts, pursuant to the Public Utilities Code (PUC) Sections 21676 and 21676.5, the City may overrule the ALUC’s inconsistency determination if, after a public hearing, the City makes findings that the Project is consistent with the purposes set forth in PUC sections 21670 and 21670(a)(2) which provides that the purpose of the State Aeronautics Act is to protect public health, safety and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adopting of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. The existing Sears Department Store and Automotive Service Center, as well as the existing residential, commercial and office uses surrounding the Project site are considered to be incompatible with ALUC policy so the area is already devoted to incompatible uses. The Project does include a proposal to override ALUC’s inconsistency determination in accordance with PUC Section 21670. In the event the City pursues and overrule to ALUC’s determination, ALUC has provided conditions of approval for which the Project shall be required to adhere.

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regional council adopted Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) a detailed discussion of the Project’s consistency with applicable

1. 388 Dwelling Units ÷14.44 Residential Acres = 26.9 du/ac Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Draft EIR Revisions/Errata Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 3-92
SCAG’s Connect SoCal policies can be found in Table 6.0-B in Section 6.0 – Consistency with Regional Plans.

Thus, because the proposed Project was found inconsistent with the RMA LUCP by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, it will conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect unless the City overrides the inconsistency determination in accordance with PUC Section 21670. Therefore, impacts are significant and unavoidable.

3.1.13 Section 5.8 – Noise
No changes were made to this Section of the Draft EIR.

3.1.14 Section 5.9 – Population and Housing
No changes were made to this Section of the Draft EIR.

3.1.15 Section 5.10 – Public Services
No changes were made to this Section of the Draft EIR.

3.1.16 Section 5.11 – Recreation
In response to the comments received during the CHB Workshop, Figure 5.11-1, Open Space Plan on page 5.11-10 of the Draft EIR has been updated to represent revisions to the Site Plan. These changes do not change the environmental analysis or findings contained within the Draft EIR and no new environmental issues are raised by these changes.

Section 3.0 City of Riverside
Draft EIR Revisions/Errata Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 3-94

3.1.17 Section 5.12 – Transportation
No changes were made to this Section of the Draft EIR.

3.1.18 Section 5.13 – Tribal and Cultural Resources
No changes were made to this Section of the Draft EIR.

3.1.19 Section 5.14 – Utility and Service Systems
For clarity, Section 5.14 – Utility and Service Systems of the Draft EIR has been modified. The analysis under Threshold: 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 effects in Section 5.14.7 – Environmental Impacts, under the subheading Conclusion, will be clarified with following text that has been modified on page 5.14-12of the Draft EIR as follows:

Conclusion
Therefore, the implementation of the Project would not 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. While the Project would require the expansion of electric facilities, construction of these facilities are less than significant. Therefore, impacts are less than significant for water and wastewater facilities needed to serve the Project.

3.1.20 Section 6.0 – Consistency
No changes were made to this Section of the Draft EIR.

3.1.21 Section 7.0 – Other CEQA Topics
No changes were made to this Section of the Draft EIR.

3.1.22 Section 8.0 – Alternatives
For clarity, Section 8.5.1- No Demolition/Keep Existing Commercial Designation under the subheading Alternative 1 Conclusion, has been modified on page 8.0-11 of the Draft EIR:

Additionally, the existing abandoned Sears building has been subject to extreme dismantlement and vagrancy and vandalism targeting electrical and mechanical systems within the structure.

No changes were made to this Section of the Draft EIR.

3.1.23 Section 9.0 – References
The following reference has been added to Subheading Section 5.3 – Cultural Resources of Section 9.0 References of the Draft EIR as follows:

DUDEK-B Dudek, Supplemental Cultural Memorandum. October 6, 2023. (Appendix C) City of Riverside Section 3.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Draft EIR Revisions/Errata FEIR 3-95
DUDEK-C Dudek, Cultural Resources Technical Report Memorandum, April 25, 2024. (Appendix C)
The following reference has been modified under Subheading Section 5.6 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials of Section 9.0 References of the Draft EIR as follows:

WEIS-D Weis Environmental, Comprehensive Subsurface Assessment Report, dated July 31 November 3, 2023. (Appendix D)
City of Riverside Section 4.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR 4-1

4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)

4.1 Introduction
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures that are part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that will be certified by the City of Riverside for the Arlington Mixed Use Project (Project).

The MMRP as reflected in Table 4.0-A, Arlington Mixed Use Development Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program below, has been prepared in compliance with State law and the Arlington Mixed Use Development EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2023060428) prepared for the Project by the City of Riverside.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for those measures placed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). The law states that the reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.

The monitoring program contains the following elements:
1) The mitigation measures are recorded with the action and procedure necessary to ensure compliance. In some instances, one action may be used to verify implementation of several mitigation measures.
2) A procedure for compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported.
3) The program has been designated to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. As changes are made, new monitoring compliance procedures and records will be developed and incorporated into the program.

4.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Responsibilities
As the Lead Agency, the City of Riverside (City) is responsible for ensuring full compliance with the mitigation measures adopted for the proposed Project. The City will monitor and report on all mitigation activities. Mitigation measures will be implemented at different stages of development throughout the project area. If during the course of Project implementation, any of the mitigation measures identified herein cannot be successfully implemented, the City shall be immediately informed, and the City will then inform any affected responsible agencies. The City, in conjunction with any affected responsible agencies, will then determine if modification to the Project is required and/or whether alternative mitigation is appropriate.

Section 4.0 City of Riverside
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 4-2
Table 4.0-A, DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing Responsible Party
Action Indicating
Compliance
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
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 Not applicable 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 Not applicable Would the Project result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Would the project expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant concentration?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable IMPACT Category: Biological Resources
Would the Project have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
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 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.

This mitigation measure was identified in the Initial Study.

No more than 3 days
prior to initiation of
grading
Developer /
Biologist
Nesting bird survey results
report submission.

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 See MM BIO-1 above City of Riverside Section 4.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR 4-3
Table 4.0-A, DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing Responsible Party
Action Indicating
Compliance
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
IMPACT Category: Cultural Resources
Would the Project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?
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 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 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
 Riverside Metropolitan Museum.

Prior to demolition or
rehabilitation
Developer / City Submission of Historic
American Building Survey
Would the Project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an
archeological resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?
MM CR-2: 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 Prior to grading permit
issuance
Developer /
City Completed consultation as
documented by a
memorandum to the Project file
prepared by the City Planning
Division. Agreement(s) with
consulting tribe if necessary.

Section 4.0 City of Riverside
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 4-4
Table 4.0-A, DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing Responsible Party
Action Indicating
Compliance
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
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: 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 grounddisturbing activities in native sediments.

Prior to grading permit
issuance
Developer /
Archaeologist
Confirmation of professional
archaeologist
MM CR-4: Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Resources.

In the event that Native American cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of grading for this project, the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:
1) Consulting Tribes Notified: within 24 hours of discovery, the consulting tribe(s) shall be notified via email and phone. 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 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
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 In the event of discovery Developer /
Archaeologist
Submittal of Phase IV
Monitoring Report
City of Riverside Section 4.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR 4-5
Table 4.0-A, DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing Responsible Party
Action Indicating
Compliance
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
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 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.

Prior to grading permit
issuance
Developer / Archaeologist /
Native American Monitors
Inclusion of sign-in sheet for
attendees of this training within
the submitted Phase IV
Monitoring Report
MM CR-6: 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 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.

This mitigation measure was identified as MM CR-1 in the Initial Study.

This mitigation measure has been renumbered to MM CR-6 for purposes of inclusion in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

In the event of discovery Developer /
Archaeologist
Confirmation of coroner and
NAHC contact
Would the Project disturb any human
remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
See MM CR-6 above See MM CR-6 above See MM CR-6 above See MM CR-6 above 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 Not applicable 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 Not applicable 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 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 Prior to Grading Permit Developer /
Paleontologist
Submittal of Paleontological
Resources Impact Mitigation
Program
Section 4.0 City of Riverside
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 4-6
Table 4.0-A, DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing Responsible Party
Action Indicating
Compliance
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
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 ground-disturbing 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.

IMPACT Category: Greenhouse Gas
Would the project generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the
environment?
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
Submittal of draft of disclosure
materials describing available
public transit, ridesharing and
non-motorized commuting
opportunities available in the
vicinity
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 occupancy.

Prior to Occupancy Developer Submittal of documentation confirming installation of
broadband/communication
technologies
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 Submittal of documentation that provides information about
unbundled residential parking
costs
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 Not applicable 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
MM HAZ-1: Decontamination of Soil. During grading activities, petroleum impacted soil at boring location B21/SG21 per the Subsurface Assessment Report prepared by Weis Environmental dated November 3, 2023, shall be removed, 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 Prior to issuance of
building permit
Developer / Contractor Submittal of Final Construction
Drawings
City of Riverside Section 4.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR 4-7
Table 4.0-A, DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing Responsible Party
Action Indicating
Compliance
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment ?
segregated from non-impacted soil using the convention soil management soil practices. However, petroleum impacted soil at greater depths in the former UST and fueling island areas 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 Submittal of Final Construction
Drawings
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 (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.

Prior to issuance of
building permit
Developer / Contractor Submittal of Acoustical Analysis 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?
There is no feasible mitigation measures that can be applied. Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 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 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.

Prior to issuance of
building permit
Developer / Contractor Submittal of Acoustical Analysis 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 Prior to issuance of
building permit
Developer / Contractor Submittal of Acoustical Analysis Section 4.0 City of Riverside
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 4-8
Table 4.0-A, DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing Responsible Party
Action Indicating
Compliance
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
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.

Would the Project result in generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 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
NOI-2above.

See MM NOI-1 and MM
NOI-2 above.

See MM NOI-1 and MM NOI-2
above.

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 Not applicable 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 Not applicable 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 police
protection?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 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 Not applicable City of Riverside Section 4.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR 4-9
Table 4.0-A, DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing Responsible Party
Action Indicating
Compliance
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
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 Not applicable 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 Not applicable IMPACT Category: Transportation
Would the Project conflict with program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Mitigation not required Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 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 Not applicable 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:

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/ 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 Prior to grading permit
issuance
Developer / City Completed consultation as
documented by a
memorandum to the Project file
prepared by the City Planning
Division.

Agreement(s) with consulting
tribe if necessary.

Section 4.0 City of Riverside
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR FEIR 4-10
Table 4.0-A, DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing Responsible Party
Action Indicating
Compliance
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
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?
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 grounddisturbing activities in native sediments.

Prior to grading permit
issuance
Developer / Archaeologist Confirmation of professional
archaeologist
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 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 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 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 In the event of discovery Developer / Archaeologist Submittal of Phase IV Monitoring Report
City of Riverside Section 4.0
Arlington Mixed Use Development Project Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FEIR 4-11
Table 4.0-A, DEIR Impact Summary Matrix
Impact Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Timing Responsible Party
Action Indicating
Compliance
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
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.

Prior to grading Developer / Archaeologist /
Native American Monitors
Inclusion of sign-in sheet for
attendees of this training within
the submitted 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 Not applicable 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 Not applicable 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 Not applicable 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 Not applicable

Riverside City CouncilSeptember 17, 2024

Riverside City Council
September 17, 2024